welfare vs wages

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

I'm trembling at the thought that we are witnessing the reincarnation of Riot.

You keep quoting the same flawed labor-union sponsored, labor-union paid for study. It is complete biased crap that says only what the labor unions want it to say. Common sense dictates that an imposed rise in labor costs will be passed on to the consumers - If corporations thought they would increase profit by paying higher minimum wages, do you honestly think they wouldn't? Do you honestly believe that they do not have economists staffed to determine precisely what wage scale would generate the most return on investment? To assume that Employers are either too naive or short-sighted to see how great/profitable their companies would operate if they paid unskilled labor higher wages - is ironically naive and short-sighted.

Economic Policy Institute:

EPI advocates for low- to moderate-income families in the United States. EPI also assesses current economic policies and proposes new policies that EPI believes will protect and improve the living standards of working families.

that doesn't make them bad, it just makes them biased.

Funding:

Eight labor unions made a five-year funding pledge to EPI at its inception: AFSCME, United Auto Workers, United Steelworkers, United Mine Workers, International Association of Machinists, Communications Workers of America, Service Employees International Union, and United Food and Commercial Workers Union.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Policy_Institute

It's disingenuous to keep cutting and pasting quips from this document like it is some sort of "independent" study.

Free markets cannot survive when employers are coerced and strong-armed into paying higher than market-priced wages for unskilled labor. Instead of encouraging this behavior, perhaps these folks clamoring to be overpaid might be better served to be encouraged to take accountability for themselves instead. That's the way it used to work at least.

for starters, let's try to stay on topic. i'm not riot, and never will be.

do you wish to continue to subsidize low paid workers thru welfare?
and why is it that before, corporations could pay a living minimum wage, but now they can't?
overpaid? below federal poverty level is correct pay? living at poverty level is overpaid?
as for unskilled-define unskilled. as has been shown, many of these 'unskilled' workers are in these jobs because of layoffs in their previous field, many have a skill, a degree, or at least some college.

as for corporations, they are like racetracks, they only consider their own slice of the pie without looking at the bigger picture. and since we taxpayers help these same corporations thru tax deals, subsidies and the like, the least they could do is pay their workers enough that we wouldn't have to subsidize both employer and employee.




it's a simple question-do we want corporations who make billions in profits to pay their workers enough to get off welfare, or do you want to continue to help these people get by via welfare?


'EPI advocates for low- to moderate-income families in the United States. EPI also assesses current economic policies and proposes new policies that EPI believes will protect and improve the living standards of working families.' sounds good to me, since i'm a member of a working family-the backbone of this country.

[Danzig]

'In July 2012, EPI joined forces with the AFL-CIO, Center for Community Change, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, National Council of La Raza and SEIU to propose a budget plan titled Prosperity Economics, a counter to the Republican Party's Path to Prosperity budget plan. The Prosperity Economics plan suggests that major public investment in areas like infrastructure is needed to jump-start the economy.'

thanks for the wiki link. i agree, we need a lot of funding in infrastructure. that's been said for some time, and was something i said a vast majority of the stimulus should have gone to. it would have paid dividends. improved infrastructure in needed areas, while creating jobs for those who would do the work, which would have aided the economy. far better than a bail out of a car maker, and us later selling the stock at a loss.


rudeboy, as for those who are the working poor...if you want to just maintain the current status quo, just say so. i'm saying there's an alternative, that would take that load off the taxpayers backs.
if you have a better plan, i'd love to hear it.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Danzig

for starters, let's try to stay on topic. i'm not riot, and never will be.

do you wish to continue to subsidize low paid workers thru welfare?

Prove that forcing Employers to overpay wages for unskilled jobs will decrease "workfare". I'm only asking because there are actual studies done by independent sources that proclaim quite the opposite. It would actually, in effect, lead to higher unemployment and hyper-inflation.

and why is it that before, corporations could pay a living minimum wage, but now they can't? overpaid? below federal poverty level is correct pay? living at poverty level is overpaid?

Are we talking about the same thing? I thought this was a minimum wage discussion. This is a completely different discussion


as for unskilled-define unskilled. as has been shown, many of these 'unskilled' workers are in these jobs because of layoffs in their previous field, many have a skill, a degree, or at least some college.

this is a more accurate analogy:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/20...age-to-20hour/

as for corporations, they are like racetracks, they only consider their own slice of the pie without looking at the bigger picture. and since we taxpayers help these same corporations thru tax deals, subsidies and the like, the least they could do is pay their workers enough that we wouldn't have to subsidize both employer and employee.

You keep at this, like somehow these evil employers are forcing us to pay for their sins - please prove this. Show one instance, where a corporate federal tax break / subsidy is directly related to employing minimum wage workers.


it's a simple question-do we want corporations who make billions in profits to pay their workers enough to get off welfare, or do you want to continue to help these people get by via welfare?

This is again, not an accurate representation of how corporate employment works. Employers are not emboldened to insuring a thriving economy - they require people to run their operations and pay what is required to do so. If they require higher quality talent, they pay more to get it.

Minimum wage jobs were never the backbone of our economy - even today, as you continue to try and refute, the overwhelming majority of people working at or below the federal minimum wage are teenagers below the age of 25. This is from the DoL, Bureau of Labor Statistics, not some paid-for organized labor paper.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012.htm

'EPI advocates for low- to moderate-income families in the United States. EPI also assesses current economic policies and proposes new policies that EPI believes will protect and improve the living standards of working families.' sounds good to me, since i'm a member of a working family-the backbone of this country.



Sounds good to me too. As I said, it doesn't make them bad, just makes them biased.

...

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Danzig
for starters, let's try to stay on topic. i'm not riot, and never will be.

do you wish to continue to subsidize low paid workers thru welfare?

Prove that forcing Employers to overpay wages for unskilled jobs will decrease "workfare". I'm only asking because there are actual studies done by independent sources that proclaim quite the opposite. It would actually, in effect, lead to higher unemployment and hyper-inflation.

please post the links, i'd like to see those. seriously.

and why is it that before, corporations could pay a living minimum wage, but now they can't? overpaid? below federal poverty level is correct pay? living at poverty level is overpaid?

Are we talking about the same thing? I thought this was a minimum wage discussion. This is a completely different discussion

no it's not a different discussion. minimum wage isn't above poverty level. businesses paid a living wage in the past, but minimum wage hasn't increased as the cost of living has done so. but profits have risen.


as for unskilled-define unskilled. as has been shown, many of these 'unskilled' workers are in these jobs because of layoffs in their previous field, many have a skill, a degree, or at least some college.

this is a more accurate analogy:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/20...age-to-20hour/

as for corporations, they are like racetracks, they only consider their own slice of the pie without looking at the bigger picture. and since we taxpayers help these same corporations thru tax deals, subsidies and the like, the least they could do is pay their workers enough that we wouldn't have to subsidize both employer and employee.

You keep at this, like somehow these evil employers are forcing us to pay for their sins - please prove this. Show one instance, where a corporate federal tax break / subsidy is directly related to employing minimum wage workers.

my point is that businesses accept subsidies from the federal govt (us) but then say the federal govt has no place in their business and how it's run, which is rather disingenuous. i'm not saying businesses who take subsidies automatically pay low wages. the koch bros (tied for 4th richest in the u.s.), for instance, have gotten subsidies.
and yes, corporations who pay minimum wage are 'forcing us' to pay for their sins, because they pay a low wage which means their employees qualify for welfare, food stamps ,rent assistance, etc. i'm saying that employees shouldn't have to be subsidized by taxpayers. they are working, they should make enough for us not to have to suppor them.

it's a simple question-do we want corporations who make billions in profits to pay their workers enough to get off welfare, or do you want to continue to help these people get by via welfare?

This is again, not an accurate representation of how corporate employment works. Employers are not emboldened to insuring a thriving economy - they require people to run their operations and pay what is required to do so. If they require higher quality talent, they pay more to get it.

Minimum wage jobs were never the backbone of our economy - even today, as you continue to try and refute, the overwhelming majority of people working at or below the federal minimum wage are teenagers below the age of 25. This is from the DoL, Bureau of Labor Statistics, not some paid-for organized labor paper.

hold on now. now teenagers are teens til age 25?! well, if that helps make your argument, then you've got me! but according to the table i'm looking at, there's a slot for 16-19 year olds. those are teens. and it's less than a quarter of min. wage recipients.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012.htm

'EPI advocates for low- to moderate-income families in the United States. EPI also assesses current economic policies and proposes new policies that EPI believes will protect and improve the living standards of working families.' sounds good to me, since i'm a member of a working family-the backbone of this country.



Sounds good to me too. As I said, it doesn't make them bad, just makes them biased.
__________________
“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....” ~ Noam Chomsky, The Common Good

[GenuineRisk]

The problem I see is that currently corporations are sitting on record high piles of cash that they are not reinvesting. Why should they; they have no reason to, as taxes are low (as few corporations pay anything resembling the actual tax rate). Companies spend money to expand when it's a way to lower tax liability and/or when demand for their products is up. With middle- and lower-class wages at historically low levels, the majority of Americans don't have the disposable income to create demand. With tax rates so low, companies don't have any motivation to spend any of the huge amounts of money they are currently hoarding. Same with the ultra-wealthy; there is only so much money they can spend and then they start to hoard it. And that takes it out of the economy and hurts everyone.

Companies are not going to cut staff if minimum wages are raised. They may try to get the same amount of work out of fewer staff, but they're doing that now anyway, so where's the loss for the average worker? If there is demand for their products, they will hire staff to meet the demand, but to create demand, you need people with money to spend. There are desperately few types of jobs that MUST stay here, and a lot of those are service sector jobs, which are historically very low-paying jobs. But the more disposable income those workers have, the more they can spend, which is good for the entire economy. It's why food stamps are better for the economy than tax cuts. Food stamps get spent (at local, private businesses); tax cuts get hoarded and taken out of the economy.

Without demand, you have no growth. And demand is not created by the wealthy; it's created by the vast numbers of poor and middle class when they have money to spend:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_...eate_jobs.html

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

The problem I see is that currently corporations are sitting on record high piles of cash that they are not reinvesting. Why should they; they have no reason to, as taxes are low (as few corporations pay anything resembling the actual tax rate). Companies spend money to expand when it's a way to lower tax liability and/or when demand for their products is up. With middle- and lower-class wages at historically low levels, the majority of Americans don't have the disposable income to create demand. With tax rates so low, companies don't have any motivation to spend any of the huge amounts of money they are currently hoarding. Same with the ultra-wealthy; there is only so much money they can spend and then they start to hoard it. And that takes it out of the economy and hurts everyone.

Companies are not going to cut staff if minimum wages are raised. They may try to get the same amount of work out of fewer staff, but they're doing that now anyway, so where's the loss for the average worker? If there is demand for their products, they will hire staff to meet the demand, but to create demand, you need people with money to spend. There are desperately few types of jobs that MUST stay here, and a lot of those are service sector jobs, which are historically very low-paying jobs. But the more disposable income those workers have, the more they can spend, which is good for the entire economy. It's why food stamps are better for the economy than tax cuts. Food stamps get spent (at local, private businesses); tax cuts get hoarded and taken out of the economy.

Without demand, you have no growth. And demand is not created by the wealthy; it's created by the vast numbers of poor and middle class when they have money to spend:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_...eate_jobs.html

saw that slate article yesterday. for years now, we've been told to cut taxes on the top % of people, that it would help create jobs. where are the jobs?
i remember reading in the past that people are actually paying banks to hold their cash. there's no incentive for them to do anything with the money, so it just sits.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Food stamps get spent (at local, private businesses).

And are paid for by taxes (you and me) of course after a few years of tacking on interest.

Taking whatever amount was given away in food stamps plus the interest away from businesses. Not just Arab owned local joints employing only family.

The 'broken window' economic theory was busted long ago. Oddly enough by a Frenchman.

Wish the President was aware of it pre Cash for Clunkers.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

And are paid for by taxes (you and me) of course after a few years of tacking on interest.

Taking whatever amount was given away in food stamps plus the interest away from businesses. Not just Arab owned local joints employing only family.

The 'broken window' economic theory was busted long ago. Oddly enough by a Frenchman.

Wish the President was aware of it pre Cash for Clunkers.

Blah Blah Blah Blah Cash for Clunkers Blah Blah Blah Blah Cash for Clunkers Blah Blah Blah Blah Cash for Clunkers Blah Blah Blah Blah Cash for Clunkers.

We get it now can we move on to the Trillion Dollar unfunded wars?

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Danzig

please post the links, i'd like to see those. seriously.

There are plenty of links - here's one to start you off, from Texas A&M econ dept:

http://tamutimes.tamu.edu/2013/02/28.../#.Up5GrCed4fQ

[Danzig]

Meer says Obama in his speech completely ignored the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) “which provides as much as a 45 percent subsidy for low-income earners,” he notes, ”not to mention the slew of other income-support and transfer programs at both the federal and state level. A single parent with two children earning $14,500 would receive $5,236 in the EITC alone, before any other transfer programs.

“People who support increasing the minimum wage are often well-intentioned, but it’s quite likely that the minimum wage does more harm than good for low-income people. There are other policies, like the EITC, that do a much better job of alleviating poverty."


so, we keep having taxpayers pick up the slack? that's what eitc and other 'transfer' programs do. it leaves the tab off the companies, and keeps it on the taxpayers. so, they don't get paid more for their work, but keep getting paid by taxpayers for having a low-paying job....yeah, that's great.

but i did like the part in the article that re-iterated that minimum wage increases don't cause people to lose their jobs, which is a commonly held myth. so, even if it didn't produce more jobs (and i have to wonder if they went far enough in their study to extrapolate more money in pockets to more money spent, hence more purchasing, more demand, thus needing more supply, which would mean more work) it would certainly get many currently at minimum wage into a higher bracket-and off eitc, off 'transfer' programs, and off the taxpayers backs.
then again...it's not as tho my taxes would go down, they'd probably just spend the money saved on another aircraft carrier.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

.
then again...it's not as tho my taxes would go down, they'd probably just spend the money saved on another aircraft carrier.

Or, currently to the Syrian rebels, Pakistan etc. or spying on US citizens.

We're taking on water and no one is bailing. Instead we're pouring more into the boat as an incentive to try and get people to bail.

Welfare was originally designed for crippled people. Not for HS dropouts, people who tattoo their faces, girls who have babies before legal consent or criminals who can't get a job.

Stop telling kids they're special until they do something. Ties and everyone gets a trophy does nothing but harm the kids going forward.

For Christ sake the President of the U.S. has said his daughter will decide when they move because she's in HS. Imagine a future boss telling her she needs to relocate?

[jms62]

I am all for a minimum wage hike as it hasn't kept up with inflation. A move to 9 bucks would seem right. From what I have been reading this would not trigger hyper inflation. I personally am more concerned about deflation as the middle class losses more and more buying power.

Getting back to this minimum wage thing, people continue to amaze and disappoint me. I am now seeing a Fight for 15 movement where they are calling for the minimum wage to go to 15 dollars. Really they have the balls to ask for doubling of wages for an unskilled job. I was good at 9 but unless you rein this absurdlty in I will have to join the dark side and say fuk you no increase whatsoever.