Push for Higher Minimum Wage

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
The kinds of projects that I’m thinking of are more of an “infrastructure” nature such as roads, bridges, electrical system, a national broad band network, more modern hospitals, etc… These kind of construction projects have specs - quality is easily verified. [/quote]
-Quality may be easily verified, but those who pay for the projects don’t have a choice, so those verifying the quality don’t have much reason to care. Even if quality can be assured, there will be no advancements which can improve those things.

[/quote]Sounds like you are arguing just to argue. The person verifying the quality has a vested interest in making sure that things are installed per spec - if a piece of equipment exploded and the root cause analysis shows that they signed off on something they shouldn’t have, then at least they lose their job, at worst they are criminally liable… This is basic construction stuff. The contractor WANTS to find all of the problems with the design because then they get paid to FIX them at change order rates. And what are you talking about when you say, “there will be no advancements which can improve those things”? I’m talking about building roads, bridges, hospitals, electrical grid improvement and a PUBLIC data infrastructure so that Verizon doesn’t continue to fuck people with their monopoly. A hospital can always be improved… I’ve worked on several of them. A road can always be expanded or resurfaced… Your statement simply doesn’t make any sense to me.[quote]

-We could certainly give the government the power to prevent outsourcing, but then technology will stagnate and the quality of existing goods/services will eventually decrease.

Everything has a value, and that value isn’t(well, it can be made that way, but it’s not a good thing when it is) arbitrary.[/quote]

How would creating “disincentives” for companies outsourcing LABOR lead to a stagnation in TECHNOLOGY? Again, your post makes very little sense to me.

102

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

It’s hard to tell a kid he should do this and that to get into college and get a career doing something that will make him happy when he he has some rapper telling him it’s all about money. [/quote]

This is a key point.[/quote]

Without question, and it plays into the previous point too.

I don’t know if I know the answer either. We do need to find it, but I don’t know what it is.
[/quote]

But WHY do we need to find it? [/quote]

The quick answer is a rising tide lifts all boats, and the middle and upper class can only raise the tide so much on their own.

Yes there will always be rich and poor, relative to each other. The point is the rich are richer than they were yesterday, and the poor are richer than they were yesterday, but still not as rich as the rich.

I’m just looking to push the bell curve to the right where the horizontal axis is increasing wealth.

I will address the rest of your post when I have more time later today I hope.

103

[quote]kappa927 wrote:

According to this gov publication the total number of workers making at or below the federal minimum wage was 3.6 million, which includes workers whose income includes tips (waiters etc.). Of these, half are under 25.

So, adults making minimum wage comprise about 1.5% of all workers in the U.S.

So why is it so important to focus on raising the minimum wage? 98.5% of workers already make more than the federal minimum. When news came out that several million would have their health insurance policies canceled surrounding the ACA, the white house response was that this was ok because “the vast majority” were not affected.

Not looking to get into a debate over the moral imperative of raising wages, but even if you think the minimum wage should be raised, how can the topic even be in the top 100 on the federal governments to-do-list? [/quote]

The Wall Street Journal published a good article about this. Over half of the people getting minimum wage are teenagers from affluent families doing a part time job at MacDonald’s or the like – precisely the folks that need less money and a dose of reality. Raising the minimum wage would certainly benefit them far more that the really poor who will probably see inflation erode any gains within a few years.

As always, full of shit…

– jj

104

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
What is a “basic living standard”? Is it simply basic shelter and food? Does it include an iPhone? Does the standard need to include more stuff or should it include access to education and methods of bettering oneself?[/quote]

If we are talking about the Public Assistance definition then IMO it is at ‘Subsistance Level’.

subsistance: the amount of food, water, shelter, & clothing, that is needed to stay alive.

When/where possible; the next next step would be community education and training programs; vocational & life-skills. (this is where I believe private charity can make the most difference)

105

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
What is a “basic living standard”? Is it simply basic shelter and food? Does it include an iPhone? Does the standard need to include more stuff or should it include access to education and methods of bettering oneself?[/quote]

If we are talking about the Public Assistance definition then IMO it is at ‘Subsistance Level’.

subsistance: the amount of food, water, shelter, & clothing, that is needed to stay alive.

When/where possible; the next next step would be community education and training programs; vocational & life-skills. (this is where I believe private charity can make the most difference)

[/quote]

I’m leaning this way myself the more I see these discussions. You can only do so much for people before they need to do their part. You can only use the excuse of “they don’t know any better” or “their parents aren’t good role models” for so long.

The information is out there. The people who can help are out there. One just needs to seek it out and put in the work to reap the reward.

106

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

It’s hard to tell a kid he should do this and that to get into college and get a career doing something that will make him happy when he he has some rapper telling him it’s all about money. [/quote]

This is a key point.[/quote]

That’s quite true but on the other hand, you’re actually not going to be making THAT much money slinging weed or basic meth/coke on the streets either. Sure, lots of cash, but the total amount of money will pale in comparison to the eventual stream of revenue in college (unless of course you go the “Cocaine Cowboy” route and become a kingpin, but that’s unlikely for pretty much all street level dealers).

So in essence, if the rapper was right college is STILL better than the alternative. The guy with the career has more money than the street dealer, just less flash cash.

107

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

I suppose before we can answer that question, another question needs to be answered. What is a “basic living standard”? Is it simply basic shelter and food? Does it include an iPhone? Does the standard need to include more stuff or should it include access to education and methods of bettering oneself?[/quote]

Interesting turn the last page took, and I think pretty good quality thoughts from Beans, H, and AC all.

Here’s the crux, you mentioned it. Should it include access to education? Yes. But you can’t force somebody to perform given the opportunity. That isn’t something you can legislate, as AC and beans have said.

And that’s the problem. But it is a problem government can’t fix. Lead a horse to water, and all that. You can get school all the way up through 12 grade. The problem is that you can’t make people work to do well as students. That is why there will always be inequality in results. All you can do is give them the opportunity to work at school performance and help them if they decide to go take the struggle head on.

108

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

It’s hard to tell a kid he should do this and that to get into college and get a career doing something that will make him happy when he he has some rapper telling him it’s all about money. [/quote]

This is a key point.[/quote]

That’s quite true but on the other hand, you’re actually not going to be making THAT much money slinging weed or basic meth/coke on the streets either. Sure, lots of cash, but the total amount of money will pale in comparison to the eventual stream of revenue in college (unless of course you go the “Cocaine Cowboy” route and become a kingpin, but that’s unlikely for pretty much all street level dealers).

So in essence, if the rapper was right college is STILL better than the alternative. The guy with the career has more money than the street dealer, just less flash cash.[/quote]

MMMM…depends. In a state were Marijuana is legal it is possible. I know quite a few people making 3-10k every 3-4 weeks with a simple aeroponic system. Problem is even growing takes know how and patience to get good yields/quality.

The problem is young people do not want to work for anything. Even if it is not going to college things like basketball, rapping, and even growing weed takes dedication, hard work, etc. Nothing is handed to you.

109

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

It’s hard to tell a kid he should do this and that to get into college and get a career doing something that will make him happy when he he has some rapper telling him it’s all about money. [/quote]

This is a key point.[/quote]

That’s quite true but on the other hand, you’re actually not going to be making THAT much money slinging weed or basic meth/coke on the streets either. Sure, lots of cash, but the total amount of money will pale in comparison to the eventual stream of revenue in college (unless of course you go the “Cocaine Cowboy” route and become a kingpin, but that’s unlikely for pretty much all street level dealers).

So in essence, if the rapper was right college is STILL better than the alternative. The guy with the career has more money than the street dealer, just less flash cash.[/quote]

MMMM…depends. In a state were Marijuana is legal it is possible. I know quite a few people making 3-10k every 3-4 weeks with a simple aeroponic system. Problem is even growing takes know how and patience to get good yields/quality.

The problem is young people do not want to work for anything. Even if it is not going to college things like basketball, rapping, and even growing weed takes dedication, hard work, etc. Nothing is handed to you. [/quote]

Well ok, I meant in places where weed is a legal crime. But you’re mostly right.

110

The bottom line is this. Some people don’t want to improve their situation, so are we as a society willing to pay more for these people ?

If not, build more prisons and hire more cops.

The heart of this issue is want and desire, which someone either has or doesn’t have.

Working the fry basket at McDonalds was never meant to be a career, it is a job where someone learns basic work skills, and is a stepping stone to the next better job.

If you choose to give these people more money, be prepared every handful of years to give more and more.

111

I think AC made a great point where he said that social assistance is supposed to be a stopgap…not a lifestyle choice.

Nobody is ENTITLED to the American dream, in certain instances people must sacrifice greatly to achieve it.

112

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Sounds like you are arguing just to argue. The person verifying the quality has a vested interest in making sure that things are installed per spec - if a piece of equipment exploded and the root cause analysis shows that they signed off on something they shouldn’t have, then at least they lose their job, at worst they are criminally liable… This is basic construction stuff. The contractor WANTS to find all of the problems with the design because then they get paid to FIX them at change order rates. And what are you talking about when you say, “there will be no advancements which can improve those things”? I’m talking about building roads, bridges, hospitals, electrical grid improvement and a PUBLIC data infrastructure so that Verizon doesn’t continue to fuck people with their monopoly. A hospital can always be improved… I’ve worked on several of them. A road can always be expanded or resurfaced… Your statement simply doesn’t make any sense to me.[/quote]
-I’m not arguing just to argue. Your argument is based on a society that still, somewhat, permits competition and outsourcing. You are wanting to do away with much of that by having government create projects. The government can(and, I’m sure, would love to) create projects all day, everyday. A government project will usually be done in the most(okay, maybe not THE most-just the most inefficient way that a majority will accept-the USPS doesn’t make its deliveries on horseback or completely on foot, obviously) inefficient way possible, using the most labor. Again, I would never argue that government can’t increase employment and get more people working-if that’s our goal, it’s easily achievable.

Yes, maintenance can be done on existing infrastructure, but there will be little incentive to make future infrastructure better than what exists.

[quote]
How would creating “disincentives” for companies outsourcing LABOR lead to a stagnation in TECHNOLOGY? Again, your post makes very little sense to me.[/quote]
-Creating disincentives would be totally arbitrary, like everything government does. If a company must pay labor a certain amount, the money it would have saved by outsourcing(or being permitted to pay its employees their true value) will go to just that-not to research and development/technological advances.

113

[quote]NickViar wrote:
If a company must pay labor a certain amount, the money it would have saved by outsourcing(or being permitted to pay its employees their true value) will go to just that-not to research and development/technological advances.[/quote]

Well in the short term, the big companies with deep pockets will continue to invest b/c they rely on the next best thing. At the same time, your small businesses, who employ MOST of these people, will go out of business.

In the long term, prices of goods would go up to match the new demand (because we all know damn well the extra $3/hour is NOT going to go to savings), the small businesses will start to come back and then you have a new generation of people who can’t survive on $10.10/hour and the cycle continues.

114

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
Well in the short term, the big companies with deep pockets will continue to invest b/c they rely on the next best thing. At the same time, your small businesses, who employ MOST of these people, will go out of business.
[/quote]

New and wonderful regulations will always hurt small businesses more than big. Regulations are a great way to cut down on competition without having to ban its creation.

“All businesses must employ at least ten people. This is a free country and we will let the market determine what businesses can survive and thrive. We can’t let some companies have the unfair advantage of only paying five employees, while others employee 1,000s. If you can’t compete in this free market, go work for someone who can.”

115

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
Well in the short term, the big companies with deep pockets will continue to invest b/c they rely on the next best thing. At the same time, your small businesses, who employ MOST of these people, will go out of business.
[/quote]

New and wonderful regulations will always hurt small businesses more than big. Regulations are a great way to cut down on competition without having to ban its creation.

“All businesses must employ at least ten people. This is a free country and we will let the market determine what businesses can survive and thrive. We can’t let some companies have the unfair advantage of only paying five employees, while others employee 1,000s. If you don’t want to play by the rules, go to work for an existing company.”[/quote]

I was kind of thinking that to but I held back on that assertion.

Ultimately, large companies maintain an Economy of Scale which means they can provide for a much larger audience using less human resources. So let’s say a majority (as in the number) of business consolidate, you’ll be in a worse position than you are now with everyone either sucking on the teet of Uncle Same or working for the man.

I have a hard time believing that’s a state anyone wants to produce. Perhaps I am being naive.

116

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

The bottom line is this. Some people don’t want to improve their situation, so are we as a society willing to pay more for these people ?

If not, build more prisons and hire more cops.

The heart of this issue is want and desire, which someone either has or doesn’t have.

Working the fry basket at McDonalds was never meant to be a career, it is a job where someone learns basic work skills, and is a stepping stone to the next better job.

If you choose to give these people more money, be prepared every handful of years to give more and more.

[/quote]

I do not know the facts but rather than take food out of Kids mouths I ratehr cut subsidies from tabacco, oil coal , solar, wind ,sugar ,Alcohol , the war on drugs , shit and all the other things subsidized

I am sure I would not cut all these but I bet I could make one hell of a dent in it

117

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I do not know the facts but rather than take food out of Kids mouths I ratehr cut subsidies from tabacco, oil coal , solar, wind ,sugar ,Alcohol , the war on drugs , shit and all the other things subsidized

I am sure I would not cut all these but I bet I could make one hell of a dent in it[/quote]

There really must be a first time for everything-good post, but thank God the government found somewhere to spend all that money; can you imagine the evil that would have been done had that money not been taken from its owners?

118

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
What is a “basic living standard”? Is it simply basic shelter and food? Does it include an iPhone? Does the standard need to include more stuff or should it include access to education and methods of bettering oneself?[/quote]

If we are talking about the Public Assistance definition then IMO it is at ‘Subsistance Level’.

subsistance: the amount of food, water, shelter, & clothing, that is needed to stay alive.

When/where possible; the next next step would be community education and training programs; vocational & life-skills. (this is where I believe private charity can make the most difference)

[/quote]

I’m leaning this way myself the more I see these discussions. You can only do so much for people before they need to do their part. You can only use the excuse of “they don’t know any better” or “their parents aren’t good role models” for so long.

The information is out there. The people who can help are out there. One just needs to seek it out and put in the work to reap the reward.
[/quote]

This is absolutely true, but is difficult in some situations. My father has been a teacher for a long time (almost 38 years). He is conservative, but not uberly so.

He told me once it is REALLY easy to talk about all the things high school kids need to do. They need to show up on time. They need to dress better. They need to work harder. They need to be less lazy. They need to get a job.

He said the problem is a lot of people have had great MODELS for them of proper behavior. Yet when you don’t see someone get up for work, when you don’t see someone dress appropriately, when you don’t see someone take care of their body hygiene wise, when you don’t see someone doing these things at home everyday it is difficult to learn the value in them.

I’m guessing a lot of us had great models for behavior at some point in our life. Some kids don’t “understand” the value of hard work because it has never been presented to them. They have watched deadbeats in their family be deadbeats and for some of them it doesn’t make sense to do more. Some people will see those situations and work their ass off to not be like their loser mom or loser dad.

Some people need better models. I learned about proper hygiene, I learned about hard work, I learned about being on time, I learned about what to wear for an interview and what to say from my family.

The easy answer is always easy. My dad is a get off your ass and do something guy, but he made me think about these things a bit differently and realize how lucky I am to have been raised by good people.

I don’t have problems doing what I know needs to be done because I was taught how and WHY it needs to be done.

Sad situations. The solution is not more government, but shitty parents is not a liberal or conservative problem. It’s a society one. And I can point to tons of people who say they are conservative and vote Republican who are living off the government teat all day long. Come to my area of Kansas and realize how much it’s not just liberals wanting a big active government to bail them out.

119

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
What is a “basic living standard”? Is it simply basic shelter and food? Does it include an iPhone? Does the standard need to include more stuff or should it include access to education and methods of bettering oneself?[/quote]

If we are talking about the Public Assistance definition then IMO it is at ‘Subsistance Level’.

subsistance: the amount of food, water, shelter, & clothing, that is needed to stay alive.

When/where possible; the next next step would be community education and training programs; vocational & life-skills. (this is where I believe private charity can make the most difference)

[/quote]

I’m leaning this way myself the more I see these discussions. You can only do so much for people before they need to do their part. You can only use the excuse of “they don’t know any better” or “their parents aren’t good role models” for so long.

The information is out there. The people who can help are out there. One just needs to seek it out and put in the work to reap the reward.
[/quote]

He said the problem is a lot of people have had great MODELS for them of proper behavior. Yet when you don’t see someone get up for work, when you don’t see someone dress appropriately, when you don’t see someone take care of their body hygiene wise, when you don’t see someone doing these things at home everyday it is difficult to learn the value in them.

[/quote]

This is a great post, and I like this part in particular.

My mother working two jobs to make ends meet and never complaining, made me sick to think about not having a job when I was able.

120

[quote]H factor wrote:
This is absolutely true, but is difficult in some situations. My father has been a teacher for a long time (almost 38 years). He is conservative, but not uberly so.

He told me once it is REALLY easy to talk about all the things high school kids need to do. They need to show up on time. They need to dress better. They need to work harder. They need to be less lazy. They need to get a job.

He said the problem is a lot of people have had great MODELS for them of proper behavior. Yet when you don’t see someone get up for work, when you don’t see someone dress appropriately, when you don’t see someone take care of their body hygiene wise, when you don’t see someone doing these things at home everyday it is difficult to learn the value in them.

I’m guessing a lot of us had great models for behavior at some point in our life. Some kids don’t “understand” the value of hard work because it has never been presented to them. They have watched deadbeats in their family be deadbeats and for some of them it doesn’t make sense to do more. Some people will see those situations and work their ass off to not be like their loser mom or loser dad.

Some people need better models. I learned about proper hygiene, I learned about hard work, I learned about being on time, I learned about what to wear for an interview and what to say from my family.

The easy answer is always easy. My dad is a get off your ass and do something guy, but he made me think about these things a bit differently and realize how lucky I am to have been raised by good people.

I don’t have problems doing what I know needs to be done because I was taught how and WHY it needs to be done.

Sad situations. The solution is not more government, but shitty parents is not a liberal or conservative problem. It’s a society one. And I can point to tons of people who say they are conservative and vote Republican who are living off the government teat all day long. Come to my area of Kansas and realize how much it’s not just liberals wanting a big active government to bail them out. [/quote]

Absolutely. So the question is, how do you break the cycle?

What is obvious to us (i.e. if you don’t want to end up like dad, you probably are best NOT following what dad does) is certainly not obvious to the individual who’s naturally ingrained to mimic those who nurture them.

One would think having outside influences like teachers and community leaders (think church volunteer organizations, etc) would be enough to at least initiate the questioning of one’s in home role models, but you often see that’s not the case. The influence and bond is just to strong and by the time you’re old enough to figure things out on your own, it’s to late. You are stuck in the same rut with the same underlying thought…that life isn’t fair and the “man” is holding me down.