The Money Mustache Community
General Discussion => Welcome and General Discussion => Topic started by: Suze456 on April 15, 2019, 11:59:24 AM
-
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2019/apr/11/jp-morgan-ceo-cant-explain-how-one-of-his-low-paid-employees-should-budget-her-salary-video?fbclid=IwAR3LAfSZNTo9NpuRbT3Z3Aa8kcbm-0SlFzvTezlczOtHJuT8fl76BY99_CQ
I found this thought provoking. Any opinions?
In an ideal world, there would be 2 parents etc...but life is not ideal. Do employers have a responsibility to provide a living wage?
I'm not in the US and welfare would be higher here ..but there would still be similar stories.
I would call a $40 cell phone bill a month a luxury but most wouldn't...and should people have to live without what is considered standard now?
-
I can't watch the video right now, but its probably the same argument as Walmart, fast food etc. I don't understand the concept that employers should have to make sure that you can pay all of your expenses. Employment is at will for both the employee and employer in the US. So if you don't want a job at the amount that they are willing to pay, then don't work there.
-
I have a few thoughts.
More and more people are starting to see that low skilled workers might need to be paid significantly more than their work is worth as the negative externalities of market-rate labor for this squeezed class begin to cause major issues.
I also think the increasingly global economy has exacerbated regional urban poverty (in addition to rural, which is what we hear most about). Major cities across the world but especially the US become investment hotspots for wealthy foreigners who often buy without any intention to rent - they just want a safe place to park their capital. That means rental investors have to pay more for properties and thus have to charge more for rent, and these empty investment properties do the opposite of providing affordable housing. So you're not just competing for housing with your fellow local wage earners, you're competing with enormous foreign wealth.
-
I think a full-time job should always have basic benefits (health insurance, paid time off to be used for vacation, sick and holidays) and I also think a full-time job should never be so low-paid that the employee would qualify for welfare, food stamps, or any other kind of government benefit. If you're a company benefiting from an employee's full-time labor, then you have a responsibility to pay that person enough so that the government is not subsidizing your business.
It astounds me that anyone would see the employee as the problem instead of the employer, who is clearly gaming the system to get cheap labor, while the taxpayers are picking up the bill. Walmart can go fuck themselves.
-
My first thought is that this mother could cut her budget pretty significantly if she put a little effort into it:
$1600/mo for an apartment may be the average for Irvine, but based on my personal experience of living in southern California, that average is skewed by the abundance of fancy pants condos that Californians love so dearly. I'm guessing that she'd be able to find something significantly less than that if she's willing to forego stainless steel, granite and a dishwasher. When I looked at the San Diego real estate market though the lens of my rustbelt upbringing, I found an amazing house to rent at about 20% below the market - sure, it had dingy carpet and an outdated kitchen, but it was 4 blocks from the beach baby!
Plus, $400 for gas for one car seems a little outrageous to me. But at least she doesn't have a car payment.
My second thought is that the story does tug on the heartstrings because no one wants to think about a 6-year old sleeping in the same bedroom as her mom while eating raman noodles every night for dinner.
-
I think a full-time job should always have basic benefits (health insurance, paid time off to be used for vacation, sick and holidays) and I also think a full-time job should never be so low-paid that the employee would qualify for welfare, food stamps, or any other kind of government benefit. If you're a company benefiting from an employee's full-time labor, then you have a responsibility to pay that person enough so that the government is not subsidizing your business.
It astounds me that anyone would see the employee as the problem instead of the employer, who is clearly gaming the system to get cheap labor, while the taxpayers are picking up the bill. Walmart can go fuck themselves.
Word.
@cassafrass Yeah, the $400 for car gas/maintenance is high and could be cut in half. Getting a lower cost apartment is also possible (though her kid needs to go a decent school, too). But, even then, this cashier would be break even without including clothes, school lunches and supplies, medical expenses, etc. Oh, and after school day care wasn't included either.
Chase made $34,000 profit for each employee. Surely it can spare $5k for its lowest paid.
-
I can't watch the video right now, but its probably the same argument as Walmart, fast food etc. I don't understand the concept that employers should have to make sure that you can pay all of your expenses. Employment is at will for both the employee and employer in the US. So if you don't want a job at the amount that they are willing to pay, then don't work there.
So major employers paying less than the living wage aren't taking advantage of their workers in your opinion? Don't you think that if those workers had any other options they'd work for an employer who clearly doesn't care about their welfare?
I think it's an absolute disgrace if employees can't afford a basic lifestyle while working one fulltime job. That should be enough to cover rent for a modest apartment, utilities, food, health insurance and yes, shock, even internet, phone etc, all those "luxuries" that are really necessities these days.
Also, as a tax payer I feel strongly that we shouldn't let CEO's and shareholders get away with burdening society instead of taking a pay cut themselves.
-
Looks like that employee could learn something on this forum! Quick search showed lower priced housing in the area, and 400/month food budget for 2 people is well above others here with 4 people.
I get that it might not be a living wage, but everyone can cherry pick numbers.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I can't watch the video right now, but its probably the same argument as Walmart, fast food etc. I don't understand the concept that employers should have to make sure that you can pay all of your expenses. Employment is at will for both the employee and employer in the US. So if you don't want a job at the amount that they are willing to pay, then don't work there.
So major employers paying less than the living wage aren't taking advantage of their workers in your opinion? Don't you think that if those workers had any other options they'd work for an employer who clearly doesn't care about their welfare?
I think it's an absolute disgrace if employees can't afford a basic lifestyle while working one fulltime job. That should be enough to cover rent for a modest apartment, utilities, food, health insurance and yes, shock, even internet, phone etc, all those "luxuries" that are really necessities these days.
Also, as a tax payer I feel strongly that we shouldn't let CEO's and shareholders get away with burdening society instead of taking a pay cut themselves.
When I hire a painter to paint my house, I don't ask him how many kids he has or what kind of rent he pays. I ask him how much he charges to paint the house. If I disagree with the quote, I tell him I will pay X amount. He can then decide to paint my house for X amount or not. It also doesn't matter whether I make $20,000 a year or $20M when this negotiation takes place. Employers are the same way. The alternative is the major company decides that paying a "living wage" for a specific job is not worth it and they sub it out overseas for a quarter of the cost. Now the employee has no job and $0 income. Anyone who has an issue with the amount another person pays their employees is free to start their own business and pay said employees whatever their heart's content.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2019/apr/11/jp-morgan-ceo-cant-explain-how-one-of-his-low-paid-employees-should-budget-her-salary-video?fbclid=IwAR3LAfSZNTo9NpuRbT3Z3Aa8kcbm-0SlFzvTezlczOtHJuT8fl76BY99_CQ
I found this thought provoking. Any opinions?
In an ideal world, there would be 2 parents etc...but life is not ideal. Do employers have a responsibility to provide a living wage?
I'm not in the US and welfare would be higher here ..but there would still be similar stories.
I would call a $40 cell phone bill a month a luxury but most wouldn't...and should people have to live without what is considered standard now?
No, employers don't have a responsibility to provide a "living wage". Employers have a responsibility to provide safe working conditions. Employers have a responsibility to pay reasonable market wages that will attract employees to take the job. Employers have a responsibility to not violate discrimination laws etc.
Employers do not have the responsibility to ensure that their employee's life choices can be financed with the pay their position earns.
-
I can't watch the video right now, but its probably the same argument as Walmart, fast food etc. I don't understand the concept that employers should have to make sure that you can pay all of your expenses. Employment is at will for both the employee and employer in the US. So if you don't want a job at the amount that they are willing to pay, then don't work there.
So major employers paying less than the living wage aren't taking advantage of their workers in your opinion? Don't you think that if those workers had any other options they'd work for an employer who clearly doesn't care about their welfare?
I think it's an absolute disgrace if employees can't afford a basic lifestyle while working one fulltime job. That should be enough to cover rent for a modest apartment, utilities, food, health insurance and yes, shock, even internet, phone etc, all those "luxuries" that are really necessities these days.
Also, as a tax payer I feel strongly that we shouldn't let CEO's and shareholders get away with burdening society instead of taking a pay cut themselves.
When I hire a painter to paint my house, I don't ask him how many kids he has or what kind of rent he pays. I ask him how much he charges to paint the house. If I disagree with the quote, I tell him I will pay X amount. He can then decide to paint my house for X amount or not. It also doesn't matter whether I make $20,000 a year or $20M when this negotiation takes place. Employers are the same way. The alternative is the major company decides that paying a "living wage" for a specific job is not worth it and they sub it out overseas for a quarter of the cost. Now the employee has no job and $0 income. Anyone who has an issue with the amount another person pays their employees is free to start their own business and pay said employees whatever their heart's content.
Great points, WAGE SLAVE :)
-
I can't watch the video right now, but its probably the same argument as Walmart, fast food etc. I don't understand the concept that employers should have to make sure that you can pay all of your expenses. Employment is at will for both the employee and employer in the US. So if you don't want a job at the amount that they are willing to pay, then don't work there.
So major employers paying less than the living wage aren't taking advantage of their workers in your opinion? Don't you think that if those workers had any other options they'd work for an employer who clearly doesn't care about their welfare?
I think it's an absolute disgrace if employees can't afford a basic lifestyle while working one fulltime job. That should be enough to cover rent for a modest apartment, utilities, food, health insurance and yes, shock, even internet, phone etc, all those "luxuries" that are really necessities these days.
Also, as a tax payer I feel strongly that we shouldn't let CEO's and shareholders get away with burdening society instead of taking a pay cut themselves.
When I hire a painter to paint my house, I don't ask him how many kids he has or what kind of rent he pays. I ask him how much he charges to paint the house. If I disagree with the quote, I tell him I will pay X amount. He can then decide to paint my house for X amount or not. It also doesn't matter whether I make $20,000 a year or $20M when this negotiation takes place. Employers are the same way. The alternative is the major company decides that paying a "living wage" for a specific job is not worth it and they sub it out overseas for a quarter of the cost. Now the employee has no job and $0 income. Anyone who has an issue with the amount another person pays their employees is free to start their own business and pay said employees whatever their heart's content.
Spot on and well said.
-
I can't watch the video right now, but its probably the same argument as Walmart, fast food etc. I don't understand the concept that employers should have to make sure that you can pay all of your expenses. Employment is at will for both the employee and employer in the US. So if you don't want a job at the amount that they are willing to pay, then don't work there.
So major employers paying less than the living wage aren't taking advantage of their workers in your opinion? Don't you think that if those workers had any other options they'd work for an employer who clearly doesn't care about their welfare?
I think it's an absolute disgrace if employees can't afford a basic lifestyle while working one fulltime job. That should be enough to cover rent for a modest apartment, utilities, food, health insurance and yes, shock, even internet, phone etc, all those "luxuries" that are really necessities these days.
Also, as a tax payer I feel strongly that we shouldn't let CEO's and shareholders get away with burdening society instead of taking a pay cut themselves.
When I hire a painter to paint my house, I don't ask him how many kids he has or what kind of rent he pays. I ask him how much he charges to paint the house. If I disagree with the quote, I tell him I will pay X amount. He can then decide to paint my house for X amount or not. It also doesn't matter whether I make $20,000 a year or $20M when this negotiation takes place. Employers are the same way. The alternative is the major company decides that paying a "living wage" for a specific job is not worth it and they sub it out overseas for a quarter of the cost. Now the employee has no job and $0 income. Anyone who has an issue with the amount another person pays their employees is free to start their own business and pay said employees whatever their heart's content.
Well said.
-
Cheap political stunting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_States
The federal government currently sets the minmum wage at $7.25. Every State also has the power to set its own wage. For a politician to take others to task over something they have control over...its a political stunt. In California, the local government sets it higher. I wonder why she doesn't mention that part?
I may think its distasteful that the CEO makes so much compared to the tellers, but that does not absolve politicians. I'm in favour of paying more, but in this case it was underhanded to try to pretend to be altruistic.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2019/apr/11/jp-morgan-ceo-cant-explain-how-one-of-his-low-paid-employees-should-budget-her-salary-video?fbclid=IwAR3LAfSZNTo9NpuRbT3Z3Aa8kcbm-0SlFzvTezlczOtHJuT8fl76BY99_CQ
I found this thought provoking. Any opinions?
In an ideal world, there would be 2 parents etc...but life is not ideal. Do employers have a responsibility to provide a living wage?
I'm not in the US and welfare would be higher here ..but there would still be similar stories.
I would call a $40 cell phone bill a month a luxury but most wouldn't...and should people have to live without what is considered standard now?
No, employers don't have a responsibility to provide a "living wage". Employers have a responsibility to provide safe working conditions. Employers have a responsibility to pay reasonable market wages that will attract employees to take the job. Employers have a responsibility to not violate discrimination laws etc.
Employers do not have the responsibility to ensure that their employee's life choices can be financed with the pay their position earns.
So, if a company chooses to pay it's employees a wage that is low enough that the employee qualifies for food stamps (so the wage is below poverty level) it is acceptable to you that a company burdens society with the cost of food stamps while the company pockets the extra profits that they can make only because food stamps exist? Food stamps and other measures aimed at extremely low income workers are basically a subsidy from the tax payer to big companies. I don't see how the poverty level is a lifestyle choice.
To use the parallel with safe working conditions, which you do seem to believe is an employer's responsability: if legally a worker can be exposed to 100 units of a certain toxin, but we know that in fact 80 is the safe level of exposure, should employers aim for 100 or for 80?
I also don't buy the "if we set rules jobs will go to China" argument. Most jobs can not be easily moved to China (and the jobs that could be moved to lower income countries have been moved already). If that's the argument we might as well not set any labour laws at all.
-
Do employers have a responsibility to provide a living wage?
In Australia, the minimum wage is set annually by a tribunal. Following the Harvester (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvester_case) decision over a century ago, it has been established that the minimum wage, if earned full-time, should be sufficient to allow a man to support a wife and three children in lives of "frugal comfort" and participate as a person in a civilised society. Or as Higgins put it,
"The standard of 'fair and reasonable' must therefore be something else, and I cannot think of any other standard appropriate than the normal needs of an average employee, regarded as a human being in a civilised community. If, instead of individual bargaining, one can conceive of a collective agreement – an agreement between all the employers in a given trade on the one side, and all the employees on the other – it seems to me that the framers of the agreement would have to take as the first and dominant factor the cost of living as a civilised being. If A lets B have the use of his horses on the terms that he gives them fair and reasonable treatment, I have no doubt that it is B's duty to give them proper food and water, and such shelter and rest as they need; and, as wages are the means of obtaining commodities, surely the State in stipulating for fair and reasonable remuneration for the employees means that the wages shall be sufficient to provide these things, and clothing and a condition of frugal comfort estimated by current human standards."
Which is to say, that workers should be treated at least as well as you would an animal. I realise that this is not a philosophy shared in all countries, but that's the standard we have here.
Of course, the setting of this number each year will have many factors. It would be reasonable, for example, to consider that a dual-income family is much more common than it was a century ago, and so the minimum wage perhaps needn't be as high because of that. There are many factors, but the welfare of businesspeople is not the primary concern.
It is worth mentioning that Australia with twice the minimum wage of the US also has lower unemployment, and has had uninterrupted economic growth with no recessions for a quarter-century now. So a rise in minimum wage need not lead to economic collapse. Obviously minimum wages are not the only factor here. Just as obviously, doubling any cost or tax or price overnight will have bad effects. But a gradual rise - well, businesses would adapt.
-
I mean, the woman has an entrance level job that only requires a high school graduate level. While I also think that CEO wages are despicable, I do believe that people need to be responsible for their life choices. This person doesn't have the education or the skills to support a family, and yet decided to have a kid. Why does she need a minivan? $1600 for one room in an apartment seems like a lot, even for Irvine. Plus as a low income single mother, it's hard to imagine that she wouldn't be eligible for any number of government programs. I knew a single mom in Palo Alto who owned a huge house and still got free diapers, etc. If she made some frugal spending adjustments, she could definitely get by while doing well enough at her entrance level job to get a promotion and a raise. That's why it's called entrance level, you're not supposed to be there forever.
The job market is supply and demand, just like everything else. If everyone could be CEO, well, then the world would be full of CEOs.
-
What a charade. Pointless political grandstanding.
Companies will pay unskilled or lesser skilled employees as low a wage as they legally can. If they don't, their competition will. It is up to the government to set labor laws to combat this.
You can spin this mother's story how you'd like but I see it as a positive. She is a single mother who never held a job, despite being old enough to have a six year old. She has managed to land an entry level job at a large multinational corporation where she will collect a paycheck and gain skills to help her earn more.
-
I think a full-time job should always have basic benefits (health insurance, paid time off to be used for vacation, sick and holidays) and I also think a full-time job should never be so low-paid that the employee would qualify for welfare, food stamps, or any other kind of government benefit. If you're a company benefiting from an employee's full-time labor, then you have a responsibility to pay that person enough so that the government is not subsidizing your business.
It astounds me that anyone would see the employee as the problem instead of the employer, who is clearly gaming the system to get cheap labor, while the taxpayers are picking up the bill. Walmart can go fuck themselves.
It is not the role of a business to be mommy and daddy for adults. Adults should be mature and responsible enough to enter into voluntary employment which can provide enough for themselves. If they cannot, there are government programs designed to ensure people do not fall through the cracks. Social safety nets are the responsibility of the citizens of society (ie. taxpayers/voters) who deem what amount of support is sufficient. McDonalds is there to serve you greasy burgers and fries, Walmart is there to sell you cheap groceries and clothes, they are not charities and they should not be expected to be some sort of replacement for welfare.
If you want higher wages, vote for higher minimum wages, that is the responsibility of citizens. Do not set the rules and then get angry when companies very clearly play by the rules.
-
That's an interesting idea, that the state is responsible for giving you a living even if you do nothing productive all day, but the company you're working for and which you add value to isn't. I'm not sure how that works philosophically unless you're a communist.
-
Couldn't care less. It's not for the CEO to do another person's finances, or vice versa.
$40 for a phone bill is ridiculous. I pay $16 a month for my service plan and it gives me more data/calls than I could realistically use.
$1600 (USD) a month for an apartment is also ridiculous - that's more than the imputed rent of my current home, and I'm doing pretty well financially. If you're poor, live somewhere modest.
Anyway, if you don't like your pay, move. If you can't, well, you're stuck. Life is there for those with skills and initiative.
-
Looks like that employee could learn something on this forum! Quick search showed lower priced housing in the area, and 400/month food budget for 2 people is well above others here with 4 people.
I get that it might not be a living wage, but everyone can cherry pick numbers.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Perhaps this would be another good humanitarian effort for Mustachians, free budget counseling for the working poor. I'm sure we could find some challenging case studies and it would be interesting social experiment.
-
Couldn't care less. It's not for the CEO to do another person's finances, or vice versa.
$40 for a phone bill is ridiculous. I pay $16 a month for my service plan and it gives me more data/calls than I could realistically use.
$1600 (USD) a month for an apartment is also ridiculous - that's more than the imputed rent of my current home, and I'm doing pretty well financially. If you're poor, live somewhere modest.
Anyway, if you don't like your pay, move. If you can't, well, you're stuck. Life is there for those with skills and initiative.
My thoughts exactly.
Though the 1600/month is for a 1BR if I recall correctly so that's pretty modest if in an expensive area. Couple that with the high car-bill and I think the person in question has made some interesting life choices.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2019/apr/11/jp-morgan-ceo-cant-explain-how-one-of-his-low-paid-employees-should-budget-her-salary-video?fbclid=IwAR3LAfSZNTo9NpuRbT3Z3Aa8kcbm-0SlFzvTezlczOtHJuT8fl76BY99_CQ
I found this thought provoking. Any opinions?
In an ideal world, there would be 2 parents etc...but life is not ideal. Do employers have a responsibility to provide a living wage?
I'm not in the US and welfare would be higher here ..but there would still be similar stories.
I would call a $40 cell phone bill a month a luxury but most wouldn't...and should people have to live without what is considered standard now?
No, employers don't have a responsibility to provide a "living wage". Employers have a responsibility to provide safe working conditions. Employers have a responsibility to pay reasonable market wages that will attract employees to take the job. Employers have a responsibility to not violate discrimination laws etc.
Employers do not have the responsibility to ensure that their employee's life choices can be financed with the pay their position earns.
So, if a company chooses to pay it's employees a wage that is low enough that the employee qualifies for food stamps (so the wage is below poverty level) it is acceptable to you that a company burdens society with the cost of food stamps while the company pockets the extra profits that they can make only because food stamps exist? Food stamps and other measures aimed at extremely low income workers are basically a subsidy from the tax payer to big companies. I don't see how the poverty level is a lifestyle choice.
To use the parallel with safe working conditions, which you do seem to believe is an employer's responsability: if legally a worker can be exposed to 100 units of a certain toxin, but we know that in fact 80 is the safe level of exposure, should employers aim for 100 or for 80?
I also don't buy the "if we set rules jobs will go to China" argument. Most jobs can not be easily moved to China (and the jobs that could be moved to lower income countries have been moved already). If that's the argument we might as well not set any labour laws at all.
The company isn't burdening anyone with anything. The company is offering an income in exchange for work.
The low-income worker that chooses to have kids they can't afford, chooses to not find a living situation they can afford, etc is the one burdening society. Put the blame where it belongs. JP Morgan didn't make someone a single mother living on their own, that was the result of the decisions made by the single mother living on her own or unfortunate circumstances. Blame her or the tragedy that caused her situation if we have to supplement her income due to her choices or that tragedy.
-
Everyone here keeps mentioning CEO’s and their huge salaries, but how about small business owners? There’s a lot of small businesses (like restaurants/coffee shops) who would simply go out of business if minimum wage was doubled.
Would we be better off having these businesses with lower wages shut down and then the employees have to find work elsewhere, as opposed to paying them less? These employees already have the option of working elsewhere, but they don’t. That, or they’d have to raise their prices so much in comparison that who knows if they could continue to stay in business.
For most company’s, I’d expect the increase wage cost would be directly passed on to the customers, just reducing the value of our dollar. Plus, people who make a small to medium amount over minimum wage now will also expect their wage to rise accordingly.
There’s also the option of harder labor jobs that pay more for most people. Granted, it also seems we live in a culture where people feel they also deserve to sit on their butt in the AC all day.
-
I believe that a full time minimum wage job should provide enough money that a person would not have to resort to food stamps or other government programs to feed themselves. If employers need government subsidies for their lowest paid employees to operate, while making a huge profit and paying obscene amounts to their top executives, something is wrong with their pay structure. I also don't think it's unreasonable to expect it to be enough to feed and house one adult and one child, assuming an average family would have 2 jobs, 2 parents, 2 kids.
The video was posed as a gotcha though, and there was no reasonable answer he could give on the spot like that. My immediate thought was that she shouldn't be spending over half of her income on rent, but I have no idea what the rental market is like in her city.
As citizens of a country, it's worth looking at our laws and seeing if they reflect the society we would like to have. Some views expressed here are a bit abhorrent to me, they have no sympathy whatsoever for the poor, and the circumstances that could lead there. A minimum wage is absolutely needed to prevent abuse and downright slavery, which employers would do if they legally could, I have no doubt.
-
I think a full-time job should always have basic benefits (health insurance, paid time off to be used for vacation, sick and holidays) and I also think a full-time job should never be so low-paid that the employee would qualify for welfare, food stamps, or any other kind of government benefit. If you're a company benefiting from an employee's full-time labor, then you have a responsibility to pay that person enough so that the government is not subsidizing your business.
It astounds me that anyone would see the employee as the problem instead of the employer, who is clearly gaming the system to get cheap labor, while the taxpayers are picking up the bill. Walmart can go fuck themselves.
+1000. We need to vote the Republicans out in 2020
-
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2019/apr/11/jp-morgan-ceo-cant-explain-how-one-of-his-low-paid-employees-should-budget-her-salary-video?fbclid=IwAR3LAfSZNTo9NpuRbT3Z3Aa8kcbm-0SlFzvTezlczOtHJuT8fl76BY99_CQ
I found this thought provoking. Any opinions?
In an ideal world, there would be 2 parents etc...but life is not ideal. Do employers have a responsibility to provide a living wage?
I'm not in the US and welfare would be higher here ..but there would still be similar stories.
I would call a $40 cell phone bill a month a luxury but most wouldn't...and should people have to live without what is considered standard now?
No, employers don't have a responsibility to provide a "living wage". Employers have a responsibility to provide safe working conditions. Employers have a responsibility to pay reasonable market wages that will attract employees to take the job. Employers have a responsibility to not violate discrimination laws etc.
Employers do not have the responsibility to ensure that their employee's life choices can be financed with the pay their position earns.
So, if a company chooses to pay it's employees a wage that is low enough that the employee qualifies for food stamps (so the wage is below poverty level) it is acceptable to you that a company burdens society with the cost of food stamps while the company pockets the extra profits that they can make only because food stamps exist? Food stamps and other measures aimed at extremely low income workers are basically a subsidy from the tax payer to big companies. I don't see how the poverty level is a lifestyle choice.
To use the parallel with safe working conditions, which you do seem to believe is an employer's responsability: if legally a worker can be exposed to 100 units of a certain toxin, but we know that in fact 80 is the safe level of exposure, should employers aim for 100 or for 80?
I also don't buy the "if we set rules jobs will go to China" argument. Most jobs can not be easily moved to China (and the jobs that could be moved to lower income countries have been moved already). If that's the argument we might as well not set any labour laws at all.
Bravo
-
Everyone here keeps mentioning CEO’s and their huge salaries, but how about small business owners? There’s a lot of small businesses (like restaurants/coffee shops) who would simply go out of business if minimum wage was doubled.
Would we be better off having these businesses with lower wages shut down and then the employees have to find work elsewhere, as opposed to paying them less? These employees already have the option of working elsewhere, but they don’t. That, or they’d have to raise their prices so much in comparison that who knows if they could continue to stay in business.
For most company’s, I’d expect the increase wage cost would be directly passed on to the customers, just reducing the value of our dollar. Plus, people who make a small to medium amount over minimum wage now will also expect their wage to rise accordingly.
There’s also the option of harder labor jobs that pay more for most people. Granted, it also seems we live in a culture where people feel they also deserve to sit on their butt in the AC all day.
What i've always found strange is that some restaurants don't need to pay minimum wage and that the customers have to cough up the difference with tips:
Both server and bartender roles function as tipped positions, meaning that the majority of their payment comes from tips. The minimum wage for tipped positions according to the Fair Labor Standards Act is $2.13, but other requirements vary by state.
My wife works in a restaurant and most of the time customers are angry at her because of errors in the kitchen. Luckily she has a base salary and the tip-jar is spread evenly among all personel.
My cousing used to work in a restaurant too, as a cook. The dishwasher that was working "tax-free" (if you know what I mean) got higher pay than he did and his coworkers in serving could split the tips without including the kitchen staff. So he is now a busdriver for the city, earns nearly double and has far less stressful work.
-
Everyone here keeps mentioning CEO’s and their huge salaries, but how about small business owners? There’s a lot of small businesses (like restaurants/coffee shops) who would simply go out of business if minimum wage was doubled.
Would we be better off having these businesses with lower wages shut down and then the employees have to find work elsewhere, as opposed to paying them less? These employees already have the option of working elsewhere, but they don’t. That, or they’d have to raise their prices so much in comparison that who knows if they could continue to stay in business.
For most company’s, I’d expect the increase wage cost would be directly passed on to the customers, just reducing the value of our dollar. Plus, people who make a small to medium amount over minimum wage now will also expect their wage to rise accordingly.
There’s also the option of harder labor jobs that pay more for most people. Granted, it also seems we live in a culture where people feel they also deserve to sit on their butt in the AC all day.
A drastic increase in the earned income tax credit with a large refundable credit (tax rebate beyond what is paid in) combined with progressive taxation of business profits with considerations of employee median pay for the portion of their business done in the US (regardless of where their headquarters are) solves the problems of the working poor while holding businesses accountable for providing a living wage. It also does not cripple a small business that has lower income.
-
I think a full-time job should always have basic benefits (health insurance, paid time off to be used for vacation, sick and holidays) and I also think a full-time job should never be so low-paid that the employee would qualify for welfare, food stamps, or any other kind of government benefit. If you're a company benefiting from an employee's full-time labor, then you have a responsibility to pay that person enough so that the government is not subsidizing your business.
It astounds me that anyone would see the employee as the problem instead of the employer, who is clearly gaming the system to get cheap labor, while the taxpayers are picking up the bill. Walmart can go fuck themselves.
+1000. We need to vote the Republicans out in 2020
I don’t want to take this more political, but why should minimum wage be a federal thing? The “living wage” in NYC or San Fransisco is so far off from a rural area of the Midwest, enacting a single wage could be terrible.
Even making this a state issue can have problems. NY state could enact a $20/hour pay rate, which would devastate the southern tier of NY and the more Midwest-like areas of the state.
So if the minimum wage should be taken up somewhere, why not a city or county initiative? And many cities and counties lean left but haven’t enacted different minimum wages. Some have, and that’s probably a better way to go about this.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I've always found these discussions extremely interesting. I get the idea of a "living wage" it makes conceptual sense to me, I guess there are differing definitions of what one means by living wage. I also think the circumstances one is in are an interesting caveat. Obviously it seems harsh to say that a single mother of one "put herself in that situation" as clearly it takes two to make a baby, but it does bring up an important point. If a "living wage" is defined as supporting a single mother of 1, why should it stop there? What about a single mother of 3? or 4? Should people be paid based off of their extenuating circumstances instead of the value they bring to their employer?
I think the difference is always going to when single parents get thrown into the fold. Most local minimum wages could support a basic lifestyle for one person, especially if they got roommates. But typically as a parent the expectation is that you and your dependents have a place of your own, in a neighborhood that allows you to get into a good school district, etc. At that point "living wage" at least in my book is re-defined as a lower middle class lifestyle.
Also, I get the whole "department of agriculture" average thing and I don't live in Irvine California, but we are a family of 4 (2 adults, a 18 month old and a 3.5 year old) and we spend on average $400/month at the grocery store for everything and we definitely eat a hell of a lot better than Ramen.
-
I think a full-time job should always have basic benefits (health insurance, paid time off to be used for vacation, sick and holidays) and I also think a full-time job should never be so low-paid that the employee would qualify for welfare, food stamps, or any other kind of government benefit. If you're a company benefiting from an employee's full-time labor, then you have a responsibility to pay that person enough so that the government is not subsidizing your business.
It astounds me that anyone would see the employee as the problem instead of the employer, who is clearly gaming the system to get cheap labor, while the taxpayers are picking up the bill. Walmart can go fuck themselves.
+1000. We need to vote the Republicans out in 2020
I don’t want to take this more political, but why should minimum wage be a federal thing? The “living wage” in NYC or San Fransisco is so far off from a rural area of the Midwest, enacting a single wage could be terrible.
Even making this a state issue can have problems. NY state could enact a $20/hour pay rate, which would devastate the southern tier of NY and the more Midwest-like areas of the state.
So if the minimum wage should be taken up somewhere, why not a city or county initiative? And many cities and counties lean left but haven’t enacted different minimum wages. Some have, and that’s probably a better way to go about this.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I completely agree. I also wonder if there are areas where the federal minimum wage rate is too high for local cost of living? Can it actually inhibit the ability of local entrepreneurs to create profitable businesses? Minimum wage rates should absolutely be based on location.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2019/apr/11/jp-morgan-ceo-cant-explain-how-one-of-his-low-paid-employees-should-budget-her-salary-video?fbclid=IwAR3LAfSZNTo9NpuRbT3Z3Aa8kcbm-0SlFzvTezlczOtHJuT8fl76BY99_CQ
I found this thought provoking. Any opinions?
In an ideal world, there would be 2 parents etc...but life is not ideal. Do employers have a responsibility to provide a living wage?
I'm not in the US and welfare would be higher here ..but there would still be similar stories.
I would call a $40 cell phone bill a month a luxury but most wouldn't...and should people have to live without what is considered standard now?
No, employers don't have a responsibility to provide a "living wage". Employers have a responsibility to provide safe working conditions. Employers have a responsibility to pay reasonable market wages that will attract employees to take the job. Employers have a responsibility to not violate discrimination laws etc.
Employers do not have the responsibility to ensure that their employee's life choices can be financed with the pay their position earns.
So, if a company chooses to pay it's employees a wage that is low enough that the employee qualifies for food stamps (so the wage is below poverty level) it is acceptable to you that a company burdens society with the cost of food stamps while the company pockets the extra profits that they can make only because food stamps exist? Food stamps and other measures aimed at extremely low income workers are basically a subsidy from the tax payer to big companies. I don't see how the poverty level is a lifestyle choice.
To use the parallel with safe working conditions, which you do seem to believe is an employer's responsability: if legally a worker can be exposed to 100 units of a certain toxin, but we know that in fact 80 is the safe level of exposure, should employers aim for 100 or for 80?
I also don't buy the "if we set rules jobs will go to China" argument. Most jobs can not be easily moved to China (and the jobs that could be moved to lower income countries have been moved already). If that's the argument we might as well not set any labour laws at all.
The company isn't burdening anyone with anything. The company is offering an income in exchange for work.
The low-income worker that chooses to have kids they can't afford, chooses to not find a living situation they can afford, etc is the one burdening society. Put the blame where it belongs. JP Morgan didn't make someone a single mother living on their own, that was the result of the decisions made by the single mother living on her own or unfortunate circumstances. Blame her or the tragedy that caused her situation if we have to supplement her income due to her choices or that tragedy.
OK.
Once poor children are born, it's too late to unburden society. So what's the solution?
You've got several options here:
- You can sterilize the poor
- You can force the poor to have abortions before birth
- You can euthanize poor children when born
- You can accept that the unsupported poor will create a permanent underclass with little to no hope of improvement, and very high chances of committing crime.
- You can pay extra for the bare necessities for poor children to become healthy/educated/productive members of society, while the companies that employ their parents become richer by not having to do so. (This is what we currently do. . . lots of handouts.)
- You can force the companies employing poor people to pay a living wage.
I'd argue that only the last two solutions are morally/economically acceptable . . . so you've really got to choose between giving subsidies to the poor (and indirectly to employers), or legislating a higher minimum wage. Both have negatives, but the current approach of giving rich companies hand outs makes less sense to me.
-
I completely agree. I also wonder if there are areas where the federal minimum wage rate is too high for local cost of living? Can it actually inhibit the ability of local entrepreneurs to create profitable businesses? Minimum wage rates should absolutely be based on location.
Generally either prices or taxes inflate with the increase of minimum wage. It was the basic premise for the movie "In Time" (with Justin Timberlake).
In my country we have a standard minimum wage which is not enough to live on for single income families with kids. But for every specific item there are subsidies available to make sure you can get your minimum (so healthcare is subsidized, rent for social housing is subsidized, sportsclubs etc.). The effect is that some genius calculated that a family on our version of welfare with 4 to 5 kids can get subsidized so as to be on equal spending level with a single person earning a net income around €3300.
The problem with this, is that for each and every subsidy you have to know where to request it and the derogatory looks you get from everyone is often a deterrent for the people who do. But there is a certain class of persons who breed like rats and have no qualms in not working, getting each and every subsidy they can and still moan and groan about not having enough to live on. The incentive to work is almost non existent though, because higher income means fewer subsidies (though in practice, working still is on the plus side in balance).
It's also rather strange that some subsidies are based on income, and not wealth in general. I can have an income of 1k per month with 1mil in the bank and still get the maximum subsidy for childcare...
-
That's an interesting idea, that the state is responsible for giving you a living even if you do nothing productive all day, but the company you're working for and which you add value to isn't. I'm not sure how that works philosophically unless you're a communist.
I think there's actually a decent capitalist argument to made for that idea.
Your argument would essentially require companies to pay people well beyond the value they add to a company. By doing this, you make the free market less free. And you also screw over everyone who can't get a corporate job (because small businesses will be exempt so they can stay open).
By offering a generous social safety net instead, people will be able to thrive regardless of their employment situation. Burden shifting to businesses creates the worst incentive - they want to avoid having employees at all costs because the cost of having employees has now greatly exceeded the benefit. So now you've got great $25/hr jobs with full benefits that all the middle class people enjoyed already anyways, but now there aren't any jobs for the people whose labor is worth more like $12/hr.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2019/apr/11/jp-morgan-ceo-cant-explain-how-one-of-his-low-paid-employees-should-budget-her-salary-video?fbclid=IwAR3LAfSZNTo9NpuRbT3Z3Aa8kcbm-0SlFzvTezlczOtHJuT8fl76BY99_CQ
I would call a $40 cell phone bill a month a luxury but most wouldn't...and should people have to live without what is considered standard now?
I really dislike this argument that cell phones are a luxury. A cell phone and / or internet access is all but required in this day and age. Applying for jobs, being contacted by childcare, schools, work, etc. Maybe there are some cheaper options out there. But to say a cell phone is a luxury is ignoring how dependent we are on them for employment, etc. It don't think its just standard because we all like texting.
A lot of the people in this thread (and forum generally) assume a lot of people who are making below living wage are just not willing for forego luxuries unlike us morally superior mustachians. But sharing a one bed room, having a car (in California, where I believe they are practically required due to distances between locations, lack of public transport) isn't really living the luxurious lifestyle. It is just the minimum to exist.
I think companies should try to pay a livable wage. Cost of living analysis included. But when the populace of a country is taken care of on a basic level, it is better for everyone.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2019/apr/11/jp-morgan-ceo-cant-explain-how-one-of-his-low-paid-employees-should-budget-her-salary-video?fbclid=IwAR3LAfSZNTo9NpuRbT3Z3Aa8kcbm-0SlFzvTezlczOtHJuT8fl76BY99_CQ
I would call a $40 cell phone bill a month a luxury but most wouldn't...and should people have to live without what is considered standard now?
I really dislike this argument that cell phones are a luxury. A cell phone and / or internet access is all but required in this day and age. Applying for jobs, being contacted by childcare, schools, work, etc. Maybe there are some cheaper options out there. But to say a cell phone is a luxury is ignoring how dependent we are on them for employment, etc. It don't think its just standard because we all like texting.
A lot of the people in this thread (and forum generally) assume a lot of people who are making below living wage are just not willing for forego luxuries unlike us morally superior mustachians. But sharing a one bed room, having a car (in California, where I believe they are practically required due to distances between locations, lack of public transport) isn't really living the luxurious lifestyle. It is just the minimum to exist.
I think companies should try to pay a livable wage. Cost of living analysis included. But when the populace of a country is taken care of on a basic level, it is better for everyone.
I've been living quite happily without a cellphone for the last 38 years. I've applied for jobs, been available for contact by childcare, work, etc. with our home phone (voip and super cheap) or the phone on my desk at my office. While I don't begrudge anyone the use of one, a cell phone is absolutely a luxury - not a necessity.
Access to internet is a necessity though.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2019/apr/11/jp-morgan-ceo-cant-explain-how-one-of-his-low-paid-employees-should-budget-her-salary-video?fbclid=IwAR3LAfSZNTo9NpuRbT3Z3Aa8kcbm-0SlFzvTezlczOtHJuT8fl76BY99_CQ
I found this thought provoking. Any opinions?
In an ideal world, there would be 2 parents etc...but life is not ideal. Do employers have a responsibility to provide a living wage?
I'm not in the US and welfare would be higher here ..but there would still be similar stories.
I would call a $40 cell phone bill a month a luxury but most wouldn't...and should people have to live without what is considered standard now?
No, employers don't have a responsibility to provide a "living wage". Employers have a responsibility to provide safe working conditions. Employers have a responsibility to pay reasonable market wages that will attract employees to take the job. Employers have a responsibility to not violate discrimination laws etc.
Employers do not have the responsibility to ensure that their employee's life choices can be financed with the pay their position earns.
So, if a company chooses to pay it's employees a wage that is low enough that the employee qualifies for food stamps (so the wage is below poverty level) it is acceptable to you that a company burdens society with the cost of food stamps while the company pockets the extra profits that they can make only because food stamps exist? Food stamps and other measures aimed at extremely low income workers are basically a subsidy from the tax payer to big companies. I don't see how the poverty level is a lifestyle choice.
To use the parallel with safe working conditions, which you do seem to believe is an employer's responsability: if legally a worker can be exposed to 100 units of a certain toxin, but we know that in fact 80 is the safe level of exposure, should employers aim for 100 or for 80?
I also don't buy the "if we set rules jobs will go to China" argument. Most jobs can not be easily moved to China (and the jobs that could be moved to lower income countries have been moved already). If that's the argument we might as well not set any labour laws at all.
The company isn't burdening anyone with anything. The company is offering an income in exchange for work.
The low-income worker that chooses to have kids they can't afford, chooses to not find a living situation they can afford, etc is the one burdening society. Put the blame where it belongs. JP Morgan didn't make someone a single mother living on their own, that was the result of the decisions made by the single mother living on her own or unfortunate circumstances. Blame her or the tragedy that caused her situation if we have to supplement her income due to her choices or that tragedy.
OK.
Once poor children are born, it's too late to unburden society. So what's the solution?
You've got several options here:
- You can sterilize the poor
- You can force the poor to have abortions before birth
- You can euthanize poor children when born
- You can accept that the unsupported poor will create a permanent underclass with little to no hope of improvement, and very high chances of committing crime.
- You can pay extra for the bare necessities for poor children to become healthy/educated/productive members of society, while the companies that employ their parents become richer by not having to do so. (This is what we currently do. . . lots of handouts.)
- You can force the companies employing poor people to pay a living wage.
I'd argue that only the last two solutions are morally/economically acceptable . . . so you've really got to choose between giving subsidies to the poor (and indirectly to employers), or legislating a higher minimum wage. Both have negatives, but the current approach of giving rich companies hand outs makes less sense to me.
So given you seem to agree that your final bullet is the ideal solution. Do we tie people's personal minimum wage to the # of dependents they support? If I am single with no dependents my min. wage necessary to "live" is surely less than a single mother with 1 child, whose is less than a single mother with 3 children, etc. To which employee is the company responsible for providing a living wage?
This could mean that a single 22 year old male living in Tulsa and willing to have roommates could have a min. wage of $8-$9/hr while a mother of 3 living in San Francisco who needs to pay for childcare would require a min. wage of $35-$40/hr.
-
Everyone here keeps mentioning CEO’s and their huge salaries, but how about small business owners? There’s a lot of small businesses (like restaurants/coffee shops) who would simply go out of business if minimum wage was doubled.
Would we be better off having these businesses with lower wages shut down and then the employees have to find work elsewhere, as opposed to paying them less? These employees already have the option of working elsewhere, but they don’t. That, or they’d have to raise their prices so much in comparison that who knows if they could continue to stay in business.
For most company’s, I’d expect the increase wage cost would be directly passed on to the customers, just reducing the value of our dollar. Plus, people who make a small to medium amount over minimum wage now will also expect their wage to rise accordingly.
There’s also the option of harder labor jobs that pay more for most people. Granted, it also seems we live in a culture where people feel they also deserve to sit on their butt in the AC all day.
Easy, do exactly what LA does.
Minimum wage increased to $12.00 for business with 26 employees or more; $11.00 for business with 25 employees or fewer, effective on January 1, 2019[184] and increases to $15.00 by 2022.[185] At least 20 California cities had a minimum wage higher than the state minimum on January 1, 2018:[186]
Berkeley: $15.00 since October 1, 2018.
El Cerrito: $15.00 since January 1, 2019.
Emeryville: $15.69 for businesses with 56 or more employees; $15.00 for businesses with 55 employees or fewer, effective July 2018.[187]
Mountain View: $15.65 since January 1, 2019 [188]
Los Angeles: (City of Los Angeles - not including County of Los Angeles) $13.25 for businesses with 26 or more employees. $12.00 for businesses with 25 employees or fewer since July 1, 2018 and increases to $15.00 by 2020. Unions are exempt from the city of Los Angeles's minimum wage law.
Oakland: $13.80 since January 1, 2019; unions are exempt from Oakland's minimum wage law.
San Mateo: $15.00 ($13.65 for non-profits businesses) since January 1, 2019.[189]
San Francisco: $15.00 since July 1, 2018 and adjusts with Consumer Price Index (CPI) increases July 1 each following year;[190] unions are exempt from San Francisco's minimum wage law.[92]
San Jose: $15.00 since January 1, 2019; unions are exempt from San Jose's minimum wage law.[191]
San Diego: $12.00 since January 1, 2019.
Sunnyvale: $15.65 since January 1, 2019.[192]
-
I completely agree. I also wonder if there are areas where the federal minimum wage rate is too high for local cost of living? Can it actually inhibit the ability of local entrepreneurs to create profitable businesses? Minimum wage rates should absolutely be based on location.
Federal minimum is for the country. States also have wage rule that can exceed federal. Certain Cities also have wage rules, so that they match local conditions.
They currently are based on location.
-
I've been living quite happily without a cellphone for the last 38 years. I've applied for jobs, been available for contact by childcare, work, etc. with our home phone (voip and super cheap) or the phone on my desk at my office.
This is super impressive and I envy you. I keep waffling back and forth about whether I really need my cell phone. If I'm being completely honest with myself the answer is "no" but a 20-year addiction is tough to get over. Kudos to you for not buying in!
-
I've been living quite happily without a cellphone for the last 38 years. I've applied for jobs, been available for contact by childcare, work, etc. with our home phone (voip and super cheap) or the phone on my desk at my office.
This is super impressive and I envy you. I keep waffling back and forth about whether I really need my cell phone. If I'm being completely honest with myself the answer is "no" but a 20-year addiction is tough to get over. Kudos to you for not buying in!
I don't really see what's so impressive about it. Cell phones are much more useful than home phones, and they aren't that expensive. For those of us who don't have phones at work, and who do lots of activities and travel, it would be a waste of money to have a home phone instead of a cell phone.
-
Are companies whose employees are receiving public benefits being subsidized by the taxpayers? It's not clear to me.
If eligibility requirements for these programs were changed, and people who had a job could no longer obtain the benefits what would happen?
1. The workers continue to work at their current wage and forgo the benefits. (In this case there is no subsidy)
2. The workers quit, in order to collect benefits, and the employer is able to fill the positions with no wage increase. (In this case there is no subsidy)
3. The workers quit and in order to attract new employees, wages are raised (In this case there is a subsidy)
I looked (but not very hard) to see if there were real world examples of this, but couldn't find any.
But until there is some evidence one way or the other, it seems that claims that the gov't is subsidizing employers is unproven.
-
I don't really see what's so impressive about it. Cell phones are much more useful than home phones, and they aren't that expensive. For those of us who don't have phones at work, and who do lots of activities and travel, it would be a waste of money to have a home phone instead of a cell phone.
I dislike the addictiveness of having a computer in my pocket at all times and its tendency to pull my focus away from what's happening directly in front of me to things that aren't all that important like answering emails and looking up insignificant facts.
I also am starting to be philosophically against the instant gratification culture that my cell phone represents. And I think it would be helpful for me to partake in some self-denial of technology for my personal growth, but it's difficult for me to do so because using a cell phone is a habit I've been indulging in for years.
So I'm impressed that GuitarStv has been able to avoid getting a cell phone despite their pervasiveness in current society. And the fact that people like him exist proves that I don't really need my cell phone - I'm just making excuses.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2019/apr/11/jp-morgan-ceo-cant-explain-how-one-of-his-low-paid-employees-should-budget-her-salary-video?fbclid=IwAR3LAfSZNTo9NpuRbT3Z3Aa8kcbm-0SlFzvTezlczOtHJuT8fl76BY99_CQ
I found this thought provoking. Any opinions?
In an ideal world, there would be 2 parents etc...but life is not ideal. Do employers have a responsibility to provide a living wage?
I'm not in the US and welfare would be higher here ..but there would still be similar stories.
I would call a $40 cell phone bill a month a luxury but most wouldn't...and should people have to live without what is considered standard now?
No, employers don't have a responsibility to provide a "living wage". Employers have a responsibility to provide safe working conditions. Employers have a responsibility to pay reasonable market wages that will attract employees to take the job. Employers have a responsibility to not violate discrimination laws etc.
Employers do not have the responsibility to ensure that their employee's life choices can be financed with the pay their position earns.
So, if a company chooses to pay it's employees a wage that is low enough that the employee qualifies for food stamps (so the wage is below poverty level) it is acceptable to you that a company burdens society with the cost of food stamps while the company pockets the extra profits that they can make only because food stamps exist? Food stamps and other measures aimed at extremely low income workers are basically a subsidy from the tax payer to big companies. I don't see how the poverty level is a lifestyle choice.
To use the parallel with safe working conditions, which you do seem to believe is an employer's responsability: if legally a worker can be exposed to 100 units of a certain toxin, but we know that in fact 80 is the safe level of exposure, should employers aim for 100 or for 80?
I also don't buy the "if we set rules jobs will go to China" argument. Most jobs can not be easily moved to China (and the jobs that could be moved to lower income countries have been moved already). If that's the argument we might as well not set any labour laws at all.
The company isn't burdening anyone with anything. The company is offering an income in exchange for work.
The low-income worker that chooses to have kids they can't afford, chooses to not find a living situation they can afford, etc is the one burdening society. Put the blame where it belongs. JP Morgan didn't make someone a single mother living on their own, that was the result of the decisions made by the single mother living on her own or unfortunate circumstances. Blame her or the tragedy that caused her situation if we have to supplement her income due to her choices or that tragedy.
OK.
Once poor children are born, it's too late to unburden society. So what's the solution?
You've got several options here:
- You can sterilize the poor
- You can force the poor to have abortions before birth
- You can euthanize poor children when born
- You can accept that the unsupported poor will create a permanent underclass with little to no hope of improvement, and very high chances of committing crime.
- You can pay extra for the bare necessities for poor children to become healthy/educated/productive members of society, while the companies that employ their parents become richer by not having to do so. (This is what we currently do. . . lots of handouts.)
- You can force the companies employing poor people to pay a living wage.
I'd argue that only the last two solutions are morally/economically acceptable . . . so you've really got to choose between giving subsidies to the poor (and indirectly to employers), or legislating a higher minimum wage. Both have negatives, but the current approach of giving rich companies hand outs makes less sense to me.
So given you seem to agree that your final bullet is the ideal solution. Do we tie people's personal minimum wage to the # of dependents they support? If I am single with no dependents my min. wage necessary to "live" is surely less than a single mother with 1 child, whose is less than a single mother with 3 children, etc. To which employee is the company responsible for providing a living wage?
This could mean that a single 22 year old male living in Tulsa and willing to have roommates could have a min. wage of $8-$9/hr while a mother of 3 living in San Francisco who needs to pay for childcare would require a min. wage of $35-$40/hr.
I don't think the final bullet is the ideal solution . . . there aren't any great solutions listed. As you pointed out, there are complications with it that I'm not sure how to best handle. It's the least worst solution if you don't like giving hand-outs to companies that don't need them though.
I've been living quite happily without a cellphone for the last 38 years. I've applied for jobs, been available for contact by childcare, work, etc. with our home phone (voip and super cheap) or the phone on my desk at my office.
This is super impressive and I envy you. I keep waffling back and forth about whether I really need my cell phone. If I'm being completely honest with myself the answer is "no" but a 20-year addiction is tough to get over. Kudos to you for not buying in!
I don't really see what's so impressive about it. Cell phones are much more useful than home phones, and they aren't that expensive. For those of us who don't have phones at work, and who do lots of activities and travel, it would be a waste of money to have a home phone instead of a cell phone.
I don't agree that a cell phone is necessary to 'do activities'. Last summer I regularly went for 100 - 160 km bike rides, well out into the middle of nowhere. A phone lets you get away with being less prepared I suppose, certainly not a necessity though. Sometimes it's kinda nice being unavailable and not tethered to work. Went to a concert a couple weeks back . . . again, didn't need a cellphone. I figured out the best route to take on transit before hand, bought my tickets, showed up at the venue slightly early, and had no problems whatsoever. It was kinda painful to see a sea of tiny screens that folks were watching rather than the actual performance in front of them . . . but whatever. In this day and age you have accept that people with cell phones will make doing most activities worse for everyone else (attending movies, concerts, recitals for your kid, lectures, driving, etc.).
I've also got to travel for a few days every couple months for work. Hotel rooms have phones. So do airports. Would having a cell phone be convenient sometimes? Sure. A necessity? Hell no.
:P
-
Do we tie people's personal minimum wage to the # of dependents they support? If I am single with no dependents my min. wage necessary to "live" is surely less than a single mother with 1 child, whose is less than a single mother with 3 children, etc. To which employee is the company responsible for providing a living wage?
This could mean that a single 22 year old male living in Tulsa and willing to have roommates could have a min. wage of $8-$9/hr while a mother of 3 living in San Francisco who needs to pay for childcare would require a min. wage of $35-$40/hr.
I think this really gets to the root of the problem. What is a living wage? It's situational and heavily influenced by societal norms that can vary from city to city or across families.
For my family of 4, I feel like having, at minimum, a 2-bedroom apartment or house is necessary because I'm used to the luxury. But my mom and her ex-husband raised my two older siblings in a 1-bedroom house with three total rooms (all 4 of them slept in the same bedroom for years and I can't even imagine that!). And a hundred years ago a family of 4 would live in a single room. So is that what a living wage should support? It can be tricky to flesh out.
-
Yes, I agree. What is a living wage? What is a necessity vs. luxury?
Do you need your own place or can you live with a roommate or extended family?
Do you need a car or can you take the bus?
Do you need to eat out for lunch/coffee daily or can you bring from home?
Etc. Etc.
Many people will say they NEED certain things to live but really they are just comforts. For example, I live in a 3 bedroom house with my partner and 2 children. If we had a financial crisis, I could move in with my parents or other family, or I could have the kids share a room and rent out a bedroom. It's not a need to have our own place. We just prefer it.
It is not the government's or our employers responsibility to pay me what I think I need. It is my personal responsibility to either find a way to earn enough to pay for what I want/need, or to adjust my lifestyle to be able to live within my earnings/pay.
-
It is not the government's or our employers responsibility to pay me what I think I need. It is my personal responsibility to either find a way to earn enough to pay for what I want/need, or to adjust my lifestyle to be able to live within my earnings/pay.
I get this sentiment and agree with it to a certain point . . . but we know that people don't always make the best choices. Actually, it seems that the norm is to make the wrong choices. Knowing this, what do you propose should happen with all the people who are unable to adjust their lifestyle to live within their earnings and unable to find a job that allows them to earn enough for what they need?
-
OK.
Once poor children are born, it's too late to unburden society. So what's the solution?
You've got several options here:
- You can sterilize the poor
- You can force the poor to have abortions before birth
- You can euthanize poor children when born
- You can accept that the unsupported poor will create a permanent underclass with little to no hope of improvement, and very high chances of committing crime.
- You can pay extra for the bare necessities for poor children to become healthy/educated/productive members of society, while the companies that employ their parents become richer by not having to do so. (This is what we currently do. . . lots of handouts.)
- You can force the companies employing poor people to pay a living wage.
I'd argue that only the last two solutions are morally/economically acceptable . . . so you've really got to choose between giving subsidies to the poor (and indirectly to employers), or legislating a higher minimum wage. Both have negatives, but the current approach of giving rich companies hand outs makes less sense to me.
Social programs are designed to help those in need. The fact that one unskilled worker has a living situation they can't afford doesn't mean all do. As such, forcing companies to pay a 16 year old kid, living at home with mommy and daddy and no bills, as if he'd earned enough to support a family is absolutely ridiculous imo. Same for that 19 year old kid living in an apartment with 3 roommates so they can afford to live on their own before they develop any skills/education/experience that an employer would value more than the minimum wage.
The "woe is me for having a shitty situation" few should not result in the government forcing money out of companies and redistributing it to people who haven't earned it. Got a shitty situation? That's why we have social programs to help people, take advantage of them. Those who didn't end up in that situation shouldn't have their employers forced to pay them more simply because some people make bad choices or end up in a shitty situation.
-
I automatically disregard any article that is designed to play on emotions. It's been a pretty good policy in life.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2019/apr/11/jp-morgan-ceo-cant-explain-how-one-of-his-low-paid-employees-should-budget-her-salary-video?fbclid=IwAR3LAfSZNTo9NpuRbT3Z3Aa8kcbm-0SlFzvTezlczOtHJuT8fl76BY99_CQ
I would call a $40 cell phone bill a month a luxury but most wouldn't...and should people have to live without what is considered standard now?
I really dislike this argument that cell phones are a luxury. A cell phone and / or internet access is all but required in this day and age. Applying for jobs, being contacted by childcare, schools, work, etc. Maybe there are some cheaper options out there. But to say a cell phone is a luxury is ignoring how dependent we are on them for employment, etc. It don't think its just standard because we all like texting.
A lot of the people in this thread (and forum generally) assume a lot of people who are making below living wage are just not willing for forego luxuries unlike us morally superior mustachians. But sharing a one bed room, having a car (in California, where I believe they are practically required due to distances between locations, lack of public transport) isn't really living the luxurious lifestyle. It is just the minimum to exist.
I think companies should try to pay a livable wage. Cost of living analysis included. But when the populace of a country is taken care of on a basic level, it is better for everyone.
Just based on what was said in the video, the lady drives a minivan. There's only two people in her family, why does she need a minivan? That's probably the reason for her very high gas costs.
And $1600 for a room in a shared apartment? Just a two minute search online showed me that while rent is high in Irvine, it should not cost that much. That's either a really nice apartment or a really nice location.
I think most people here would agree that $400 for food for an adult and a child is more than adequate and not the daily ramen that it's made to sound.
Actually I would argue that the company does indeed pay a living wage, for an adult without dependents. If this lady didn't have to pay for childcare she'd be perfectly fine. The number of dependents that an employee has is not something that companies can control. If we start going into supporting dependents, well how many kids should a living wage support? 1? 2? 3? What about elderly dependents with medical issues? These are all highly individual expenses, and basically what welfare is for. Welfare looks at your wage vs your dependents. It would be pretty messed up if companies had to pay you based on your dependents.
-
OK.
Once poor children are born, it's too late to unburden society. So what's the solution?
You've got several options here:
- You can sterilize the poor
- You can force the poor to have abortions before birth
- You can euthanize poor children when born
- You can accept that the unsupported poor will create a permanent underclass with little to no hope of improvement, and very high chances of committing crime.
- You can pay extra for the bare necessities for poor children to become healthy/educated/productive members of society, while the companies that employ their parents become richer by not having to do so. (This is what we currently do. . . lots of handouts.)
- You can force the companies employing poor people to pay a living wage.
I'd argue that only the last two solutions are morally/economically acceptable . . . so you've really got to choose between giving subsidies to the poor (and indirectly to employers), or legislating a higher minimum wage. Both have negatives, but the current approach of giving rich companies hand outs makes less sense to me.
Social programs are designed to help those in need. The fact that one unskilled worker has a living situation they can't afford doesn't mean all do. As such, forcing companies to pay a 16 year old kid, living at home with mommy and daddy and no bills, as if he'd earned enough to support a family is absolutely ridiculous imo. Same for that 19 year old kid living in an apartment with 3 roommates so they can afford to live on their own before they develop any skills/education/experience that an employer would value more than the minimum wage.
The "woe is me for having a shitty situation" few should not result in the government forcing money out of companies and redistributing it to people who haven't earned it. Got a shitty situation? That's why we have social programs to help people, take advantage of them. Those who didn't end up in that situation shouldn't have their employers forced to pay them more simply because some people make bad choices or end up in a shitty situation.
I feel like there's some misplaced anger in your post.
You've already established that the government is going to force money out of someone to redistribute it to 'people who haven't earned it'. Why is it OK (or better) to do this through social programs that tax payers are on the hook for, but unacceptable to do this through minimum wage values that companies are on the hook for?
Right now companies profit because the tax payer is handing money out directly to poor employees, so that the employees can accept jobs that are below the amount they need to live. A change to minimum wage would mean that companies have to pay the true cost of hiring their employees, without effectively getting hand-outs from you and me.
I don't think that anyone is advocating for a princely living wage (I'm certainly not), just as you're not advocating for a princely government social program hand out. But the need is not going away, and the money has to come from somewhere. I don't see why my taxes should continue subsidizing cheap employers.
-
It is not the government's or our employers responsibility to pay me what I think I need. It is my personal responsibility to either find a way to earn enough to pay for what I want/need, or to adjust my lifestyle to be able to live within my earnings/pay.
I get this sentiment and agree with it to a certain point . . . but we know that people don't always make the best choices. Actually, it seems that the norm is to make the wrong choices. Knowing this, what do you propose should happen with all the people who are unable to adjust their lifestyle to live within their earnings and unable to find a job that allows them to earn enough for what they need?
If they are truly unable to change either side of their situation then government assistance is necessary. If they are able but choose not to, then nothing - hunger is a great motivator.
-
It is not the government's or our employers responsibility to pay me what I think I need. It is my personal responsibility to either find a way to earn enough to pay for what I want/need, or to adjust my lifestyle to be able to live within my earnings/pay.
I get this sentiment and agree with it to a certain point . . . but we know that people don't always make the best choices. Actually, it seems that the norm is to make the wrong choices. Knowing this, what do you propose should happen with all the people who are unable to adjust their lifestyle to live within their earnings and unable to find a job that allows them to earn enough for what they need?
If they are truly unable to change either side of their situation then government assistance is necessary. If they are able but choose not to, then nothing - hunger is a great motivator.
Agreed. That's beside the point of the topic under discussion though.
What about the people who are unable to find a job that pays what they need because wages have been artificially depressed by employers are taking advantage of their ability to pay less because the rest of us will pick up the slack through tax funded social programs?
-
It is not the government's or our employers responsibility to pay me what I think I need. It is my personal responsibility to either find a way to earn enough to pay for what I want/need, or to adjust my lifestyle to be able to live within my earnings/pay.
I get this sentiment and agree with it to a certain point . . . but we know that people don't always make the best choices. Actually, it seems that the norm is to make the wrong choices. Knowing this, what do you propose should happen with all the people who are unable to adjust their lifestyle to live within their earnings and unable to find a job that allows them to earn enough for what they need?
We have various public assistance programs available for this circumstance. Food stamps, housing assistance, Medicaid, etc.
Remember that the true minimum wage is $0. We usually refer to this as unemployment. You can view the situation of employed people on benefits as government subsidizing a business, but you could also view it as an employer helping the government out by reducing the amount of public assistance the person would need compared to if they weren't employed at all.
A business isn't going to offer a job if they don't expect the employee to create economic value in excess of their wages. If a person doesn't have the ability to create economic value in excess of the cost of a basic living for themselves and any dependents they might have, we can either let them work for less than a "living wage" and earn what they can so that they only need a little bit of government assistance, or we can have the government pay for their whole lifestyle.
-
I don't really see it as tax payers subsidizing employers costs. I see it as the workings of a free economy, with a bit of a social safety net. Call me Randist, but I just don't think increasing government interference in corporations is good for the economy. The radical socialism that some Democrats are currently spouting frankly terrifies me. I come from Communist China; that system didn't work, the country went to hell, and now they're more capitalist than we are. I would hate for the U.S. to repeat a failed experiment at the cost of our economy. A robust economy is pretty important to those of us pursuing FIRE.
-
It is not the government's or our employers responsibility to pay me what I think I need. It is my personal responsibility to either find a way to earn enough to pay for what I want/need, or to adjust my lifestyle to be able to live within my earnings/pay.
I get this sentiment and agree with it to a certain point . . . but we know that people don't always make the best choices. Actually, it seems that the norm is to make the wrong choices. Knowing this, what do you propose should happen with all the people who are unable to adjust their lifestyle to live within their earnings and unable to find a job that allows them to earn enough for what they need?
We have various public assistance programs available for this circumstance. Food stamps, housing assistance, Medicaid, etc.
Yes, I'd like to reduce the need to give people these handouts.
Remember that the true minimum wage is $0. We usually refer to this as unemployment. You can view the situation of employed people on benefits as government subsidizing a business, but you could also view it as an employer helping the government out by reducing the amount of public assistance the person would need compared to if they weren't employed at all.
Not sure that this argument makes sense in the big picture.
I feel that many people who are working 40 hours a week for their employer, and then depending on government subsidies to make ends meet are trapped. They don't have the time, energy, and resources to leave and search out a better job . . . and this scenario only really benefits the employer. It means that people will be using fewer government subsidies than if they were not working at all, but they'll be on those subsidies permanently. Is that better, or is it preventing a real solution from being found? I don't know.
A business isn't going to offer a job if they don't expect the employee to create economic value in excess of their wages. If a person doesn't have the ability to create economic value in excess of the cost of a basic living for themselves and any dependents they might have, we can either let them work for less than a "living wage" and earn what they can so that they only need a little bit of government assistance, or we can have the government pay for their whole lifestyle.
Agreed, a business isn't going to offer a job if they don't expect benefit from doing so. We are living in the most profitable time in history though. I have suspicions that employers can offer more money but choose not to because they know that they don't have to. The taxpayer will subsidize them, providing a chunk of effectively immobile workforce.
I don't really see it as tax payers subsidizing employers costs. I see it as the workings of a free economy, with a bit of a social safety net. Call me Randist, but I just don't think increasing government interference in corporations is good for the economy. The radical socialism that some Democrats are currently spouting frankly terrifies me. I come from Communist China; that system didn't work, the country went to hell, and now they're more capitalist than we are. I would hate for the U.S. to repeat a failed experiment at the cost of our economy. A robust economy is pretty important to those of us pursuing FIRE.
Not sure I follow your logic at all. Employers can pay less because tax payers will subsidize their workers through social programs. If you don't want to call it a subsidy, that's fine . . . but what else would you call it?
From where I'm sitting it seems like you're advocating for the form of government control that we currently have because you're against and terrified of government control. Which is confusing. I guess the difference is that government control via handouts to people is direct, whereas government control by setting a minimum wage is much more hands off, so that's why you dislike the idea?
-
I don't really see it as tax payers subsidizing employers costs. I see it as the workings of a free economy, with a bit of a social safety net. Call me Randist, but I just don't think increasing government interference in corporations is good for the economy. The radical socialism that some Democrats are currently spouting frankly terrifies me. I come from Communist China; that system didn't work, the country went to hell, and now they're more capitalist than we are. I would hate for the U.S. to repeat a failed experiment at the cost of our economy. A robust economy is pretty important to those of us pursuing FIRE.
Comparing communism to social democracy is quite the straw man. A more accurate argument on your part would be that you do not want to see the U.S. adopt polices more closely aligned with most countries in Western Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Most who don't want to see more social programs have no actual problem with the social programs in those countries. They just don't want to have to pay higher taxes to fund them.
-
To be clear, I don't have a problem with setting a minimum wage, or increasing it over time to keep up with inflation. My issue is trying to ensure that it is a "living wage" for everyone, which I see as impossible unless it is incredibly high, or we force corporations to pay people not based on their position but their number of dependents, living expenses, etc.
-
I don't really see it as tax payers subsidizing employers costs. I see it as the workings of a free economy, with a bit of a social safety net. Call me Randist, but I just don't think increasing government interference in corporations is good for the economy. The radical socialism that some Democrats are currently spouting frankly terrifies me. I come from Communist China; that system didn't work, the country went to hell, and now they're more capitalist than we are. I would hate for the U.S. to repeat a failed experiment at the cost of our economy. A robust economy is pretty important to those of us pursuing FIRE.
Comparing communism to social democracy is quite the straw man. A more accurate argument on your part would be that you do not want to see the U.S. adopt polices more closely aligned with most countries in Western Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Most who don't want to see more social programs have no actual problem with the social programs in those countries. They just don't want to have to pay higher taxes to fund them.
Have you seen what some of the Democratic candidates are saying?
Elizabeth Warren wants to forcibly break up large tech companies.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/08/elizabeth-warren-amazon-facebook-google-big-tech-break-up-blogpost
Bernie Sanders wants to break up big banks and establish worker cooperatives.
This all goes far beyond increasing the minimum wage.
They may call it social democracy but I'm really getting deja vu here.
-
It is not the government's or our employers responsibility to pay me what I think I need. It is my personal responsibility to either find a way to earn enough to pay for what I want/need, or to adjust my lifestyle to be able to live within my earnings/pay.
I get this sentiment and agree with it to a certain point . . . but we know that people don't always make the best choices. Actually, it seems that the norm is to make the wrong choices. Knowing this, what do you propose should happen with all the people who are unable to adjust their lifestyle to live within their earnings and unable to find a job that allows them to earn enough for what they need?
Obviously, make them suffer.
And their children.
Because, WTF were they doing having kids they couldn't afford?
I mean, suck it.
Not my problem, amirite?
-
A business isn't going to offer a job if they don't expect the employee to create economic value in excess of their wages. If a person doesn't have the ability to create economic value in excess of the cost of a basic living for themselves and any dependents they might have, we can either let them work for less than a "living wage" and earn what they can so that they only need a little bit of government assistance, or we can have the government pay for their whole lifestyle.
Agreed, a business isn't going to offer a job if they don't expect benefit from doing so. We are living in the most profitable time in history though. I have suspicions that employers can offer more money but choose not to because they know that they don't have to. The taxpayer will subsidize them, providing a chunk of effectively immobile workforce.
Sure, I'm certain there are jobs that exist that would still exist if the minimum wage was bumped up a buck or two. I'm also certain there are jobs that would no longer make sense to offer if this happened.
Take Walmart for example. The corporation had a net income of just under $7.2 billion (https://s2.q4cdn.com/056532643/files/doc_financials/2019/Q4/Q4FY19-Earnings-Release-Final.pdf) in its last fiscal year. They also had 2.2 million employees. That's a net income of roughly $3,250 per employee. That's not nothing, but it's also not a huge amount of wiggle room to raise wages while still breaking even. They could probably bump up the wages at some of their stores by $3k per employee or more, but a wage increase of this amount would probably make some other stores unprofitable and the company would decide to close them if such a wage increase was forced on them by law.
Regarding the effect of being locked into a job and unable to increase their skills, I do support a universal basic income. This would have the effect of increasing rather than decreasing government spending, but I think the other effects of such a policy would make it worthwhile.
-
I just feel that the current democratic policy of demonizing large corporations, as embodied in the video from the OP, is not good for anybody. Do CEOs make an obscene amount of money? Yes, but I see it as a necessary evil of economic growth and robustness. This whole "rich people are evil" mentality is exactly what communism is all about (I grew up on Mao slogans and Communist propaganda).
It is precisely the example of other western countries that show sensible systems like universal healthcare are possible without going to extremes. We should be going forwards, not backwards.
-
Do CEOs make an obscene amount of money? Yes, but I see it as a necessary evil of economic growth and robustness.
So, I don't see rich people as evil . . . but am confused when I see statements like this.
Do you believe that capping a CEOs salary at say, 9 million instead of 20 million would significantly hurt economic growth and robustness? Or that it would hurt the bottom dollar of the company he (it's almost invariably a white guy) works for? I'm not saying that the government should be involved in this process at all . . . it's just surprising that share holders stand for the salaries they way they are.
It would be shocking if paying a huge amount (but a little less than is currently the norm) really had any negative impact on the company . . . and even more so if it had an impact on the economy as a whole.
-
OK.
Once poor children are born, it's too late to unburden society. So what's the solution?
You've got several options here:
- You can sterilize the poor
- You can force the poor to have abortions before birth
- You can euthanize poor children when born
- You can accept that the unsupported poor will create a permanent underclass with little to no hope of improvement, and very high chances of committing crime.
- You can pay extra for the bare necessities for poor children to become healthy/educated/productive members of society, while the companies that employ their parents become richer by not having to do so. (This is what we currently do. . . lots of handouts.)
- You can force the companies employing poor people to pay a living wage.
I'd argue that only the last two solutions are morally/economically acceptable . . . so you've really got to choose between giving subsidies to the poor (and indirectly to employers), or legislating a higher minimum wage. Both have negatives, but the current approach of giving rich companies hand outs makes less sense to me.
Social programs are designed to help those in need. The fact that one unskilled worker has a living situation they can't afford doesn't mean all do. As such, forcing companies to pay a 16 year old kid, living at home with mommy and daddy and no bills, as if he'd earned enough to support a family is absolutely ridiculous imo. Same for that 19 year old kid living in an apartment with 3 roommates so they can afford to live on their own before they develop any skills/education/experience that an employer would value more than the minimum wage.
The "woe is me for having a shitty situation" few should not result in the government forcing money out of companies and redistributing it to people who haven't earned it. Got a shitty situation? That's why we have social programs to help people, take advantage of them. Those who didn't end up in that situation shouldn't have their employers forced to pay them more simply because some people make bad choices or end up in a shitty situation.
I feel like there's some misplaced anger in your post.
You've already established that the government is going to force money out of someone to redistribute it to 'people who haven't earned it'. Why is it OK (or better) to do this through social programs that tax payers are on the hook for, but unacceptable to do this through minimum wage values that companies are on the hook for?
Right now companies profit because the tax payer is handing money out directly to poor employees, so that the employees can accept jobs that are below the amount they need to live. A change to minimum wage would mean that companies have to pay the true cost of hiring their employees, without effectively getting hand-outs from you and me.
I don't think that anyone is advocating for a princely living wage (I'm certainly not), just as you're not advocating for a princely government social program hand out. But the need is not going away, and the money has to come from somewhere. I don't see why my taxes should continue subsidizing cheap employers.
It's better because then we're only redistributing the money to people that need it, instead of to "everyone earning the same amount as people who need it". Therefore, we don't have to redistribute nearly as much. I certainly didn't need to earn a "living wage" as a fast-food cook at 16, even if the 30 year old cashier with 5 kids working with me would have significantly different needs. Why should we make that fast food restaurant pay both of us enough to cover the spending for an adult family with kids?
Companies profit because their costs are less than their earnings. That some of their employees take jobs that don't pay their bills is irrelevant, whether it's because those employees have decided to buy a house they can't afford or have a lifestyle they can't afford etc, is immaterial. It's not the company's job to make sure their employees can afford their lifestyle. It's the employee's responsibility to ensure they have a lifestyle they can afford with the income they have. If that's not what they're doing, then they need to go read MMM and figure out how to optimize their spending or they need to find a way to earn more. Forcing companies to pay some ridiculous "living wage" to everyone, regardless of their value to the company, is simply absurd to me though.
-
Do CEOs make an obscene amount of money? Yes, but I see it as a necessary evil of economic growth and robustness.
So, I don't see rich people as evil . . . but am confused when I see statements like this.
Do you believe that capping a CEOs salary at say, 9 million instead of 20 million would significantly hurt economic growth and robustness? Or that it would hurt the bottom dollar of the company he (it's almost invariably a white guy) works for? I'm not saying that the government should be involved in this process at all . . . it's just surprising that share holders stand for the salaries they way they are.
It would be shocking if paying a huge amount (but a little less than is currently the norm) really had any negative impact on the company . . . and even more so if it had an impact on the economy as a whole.
There's a finite number of people making huge salaries like that, and most CEO's will never see that kind of money. The ones that do, like professional athletes, get that kind of income because it is what is needed to keep them at your company instead of at your competitor, and you feel they bring that much value to the organization. Like NFL quarterbacks etc, some fail to produce while others shine. But it's the rarity of their particular skills and acumen that make them worth that to the organization in most cases. Apple would be a footnote in history if someone without Jobs' visionary thinking had been at the helm of the company, etc. The leadership of a company can burn it to the ground or propel it to amazing heights, and that's worth a lot of money, even if some people don't agree with it.
-
Do CEOs make an obscene amount of money? Yes, but I see it as a necessary evil of economic growth and robustness.
So, I don't see rich people as evil . . . but am confused when I see statements like this.
Do you believe that capping a CEOs salary at say, 9 million instead of 20 million would significantly hurt economic growth and robustness? Or that it would hurt the bottom dollar of the company he (it's almost invariably a white guy) works for? I'm not saying that the government should be involved in this process at all . . . it's just surprising that share holders stand for the salaries they way they are.
It would be shocking if paying a huge amount (but a little less than is currently the norm) really had any negative impact on the company . . . and even more so if it had an impact on the economy as a whole.
I don't really have an opinion about whether or not CEO salaries should be capped, mostly because I don't think I know enough about the workings of large corporations to make an informed decision. I may think they make too much, but if I were called upon to decide on a cap and what it should be, I doubt it would be an easy decision. And anyway it isn't my decision to make, since I am not a major shareholder.
I just care that the government not try to involve themselves in this kind of thing. It is a very slippery slope.
-
Let me illustrate some of the problems with the "pay everyone a living wage" idea...
1. It's absurd to try and come up with a situation where one wage will be accepted as acceptable everywhere. What a 16 or 19 year old living for free with their parents in a LCOL area needs for an income to "live" is much different than what a single mother of 7 kids in a HCOL area needs. So where do you set the standard? Pay a 19 year old high school dropout with no ambition enough to support a family of 8 in a HCOL area? Make it a living wage for the kid living at home? (heck, our current min wage fits that criteria already). Some randomly chosen amount in-between the two? Probably the compromise that people would generally choose... or they'd tell us to make it based on everyone's individual situation..
2. So, if we make it based on their individual situation, then I'm only hiring the single, living at home people for my jobs that require no skills. Single mothers need not apply as I'm not paying more to get nothing more.
3. If we make it based on some random number, now I'm overpaying a bunch of people for no reason (they didn't need the extra pay, I'm just forced to give it to them), and we STILL have people out there not making a living wage... so we didn't even fix the problem, we just cut profitability of all companies, guaranteed for some to be enough to cause some that were scraping by to fail and put everyone that was working there out of work. So goody, some people are making more than they need or are worth, some people manage to get by and you can cancel their government welfare etc, and others still need the government welfare and some new people are now unemployed and need government welfare to help them out.
So, we don't get rid of social programs, but we do put some businesses under, cause other businesses to do worse (negatively impacting the ability to reinvest in the business and grow it and prosper) - or alternatively I make up that difference by raising prices, thus increasing your cost of living and you didn't get a raise to offset it because you weren't poor enough, put some people out of work, and we've got 16 year old's flipping burgers for enough money to afford to buy a decent house and car.... I fail to see how that's better than letting the government tax some of our taxes to help out those in a bad spot, which, by the way, the overwhelming majority get out of as it is.
-
It is not the government's or our employers responsibility to pay me what I think I need. It is my personal responsibility to either find a way to earn enough to pay for what I want/need, or to adjust my lifestyle to be able to live within my earnings/pay.
I agree with this. However, when the wage is so low that even the government says it falls under the poverty line, then something is wrong. Really wrong.
Want to adjust the minimum wage? Fine, but it needs to get done.
The bottom line is that I don't think taxpayers should be paying for something that benefits employers.
Let's assume for just a moment that the workers are going to be paid some amount that raises their income above the federal poverty level. Who should pay for that? The taxpayer or the business that needs the work done? See that reframing? I'm not blaming poor people for being poor.
I wholeheartedly agree that there should be a free-market system, but it seems to me that without some oversight and regulation, the people with the power can take advantage and tip the odds in their favor. That's what minimum wage is designed to do, but for some reason people vilify raising minimum wage. The US Government should not be in the business of subsidizing company labor. Period. And that's what is happening.
Income inequality is unsustainable
-
I can't watch the video right now, but its probably the same argument as Walmart, fast food etc. I don't understand the concept that employers should have to make sure that you can pay all of your expenses. Employment is at will for both the employee and employer in the US. So if you don't want a job at the amount that they are willing to pay, then don't work there.
So major employers paying less than the living wage aren't taking advantage of their workers in your opinion? Don't you think that if those workers had any other options they'd work for an employer who clearly doesn't care about their welfare?
I think it's an absolute disgrace if employees can't afford a basic lifestyle while working one fulltime job. That should be enough to cover rent for a modest apartment, utilities, food, health insurance and yes, shock, even internet, phone etc, all those "luxuries" that are really necessities these days.
Also, as a tax payer I feel strongly that we shouldn't let CEO's and shareholders get away with burdening society instead of taking a pay cut themselves.
When I hire a painter to paint my house, I don't ask him how many kids he has or what kind of rent he pays. I ask him how much he charges to paint the house. If I disagree with the quote, I tell him I will pay X amount. He can then decide to paint my house for X amount or not. It also doesn't matter whether I make $20,000 a year or $20M when this negotiation takes place. Employers are the same way. The alternative is the major company decides that paying a "living wage" for a specific job is not worth it and they sub it out overseas for a quarter of the cost. Now the employee has no job and $0 income. Anyone who has an issue with the amount another person pays their employees is free to start their own business and pay said employees whatever their heart's content.
I think I have a ethical duty to pay decent wages when I can. We recently got new sidings, windows, and insulation on our house. When I asked for offers, they varied between $10 000 and $65 000. We did not choose the cheapest ones, but rather went for one in the middle who:
-priced their work including taxes
-had apprentices from local vocational school (you can't get this unless you have good standards for EHS)
-employed local people with all the necessary certificates
-used local materials of good quality
It cost more, and we had to wait for a year before they had time to do our house. But it was worth it; both in quality and peace of mind.
It is more difficult to do this quality control when I buy groceries, clothes or visit a restaurant. But I do try my best to avoid places that deny their employees tariff wage agreements, buy as much as possible second hand, and try to buy directly from the farmers when I can.
BTW; the Nordics don't have minimum wages. Instead, the unions are very strong, and negotiate tariff wages with the employers' unions. In sectors where the unions are less strong (or more commonly; where we have a lot of foreigners working), the unions and government can decide to use the tariffs as a minimum wage standard. So if you really dislike the government raising the minimum wages, maybe it is an idea to give more power to the unions? (:D)
-
The US Government should not be in the business of subsidizing company labor. Period. And that's what is happening.
Income inequality is unsustainable
But we don't know that the gov't is subsidizing these companies. I made that point up thread.
-
BTW; the Nordics don't have minimum wages. Instead, the unions are very strong, and negotiate tariff wages with the employers' unions. In sectors where the unions are less strong (or more commonly; where we have a lot of foreigners working), the unions and government can decide to use the tariffs as a minimum wage standard. So if you really dislike the government raising the minimum wages, maybe it is an idea to give more power to the unions? (:D)
This is an interesting point. Strong unions (and a large percentage of the work force covered by unions) are the free market solution to solving the problem we're discussing . . . yet most of the people against raising minimum wage tend to be against unions too.
-
BTW; the Nordics don't have minimum wages. Instead, the unions are very strong, and negotiate tariff wages with the employers' unions. In sectors where the unions are less strong (or more commonly; where we have a lot of foreigners working), the unions and government can decide to use the tariffs as a minimum wage standard. So if you really dislike the government raising the minimum wages, maybe it is an idea to give more power to the unions? (:D)
This is an interesting point. Strong unions (and a large percentage of the work force covered by unions) are the free market solution to solving the problem we're discussing . . . yet most of the people against raising minimum wage tend to be against unions too.
Unions raise wages by restricting the supply of labor. Immigration lowers wages by increasing the supply of labor...
Yet most of the people in favor of unions, tend to also be in favor of more immigration.
-
I'll start out by prefacing this with "I've never had to live in the real world", by that I mean, I went university more than 30 years ago, in Ontario, so I graduated with no student debt and started a job 2 weeks after I finished school, making more than my mother and almost as much as my father. (I choose to get a computer science degree rather than a basket weaving degree - so, there's that). By the end of my first full year of working, I wasn't short on cash, but couldn't account for a fair chunk of disposable income, and I started paying more attention to where the dollars were going. Still wasn't super smart, but at least was saving......I've never been out of work, or had a spouse out of work, I live in Canada, so I have 'free' health care (I put it in quotes, because I'm taxed pretty heavily).....
I know I don't want to live on minimum wage, but I also know we live in a free market economy. If we force higher minimum wages, companies just get better and better at automating low skill work. Think about it, 30 years ago, you had to pay for the privilege of on-line banking, now you pay if you don't. Grocery stores have self checkout, gas stations have pay at the pump, ATMs are every where and bank branches are closing down. More and more fast food restaurants have mobile apps for you to order - do you really think that's for your convenience? No, they need fewer store employees - you're doing the work now.
And what do we do with the next rung of wages if we raise minimum wage? If, for example, minimum wage jumps from $11 to $14, as it did in Ontario more than a year ago, do you think the folks with a few years of experience that were making $14/hour suddenly got a $4/hr raise too? Nope, and food prices at low end restaurants went up at a higher percentage than the high end places.
I resent the amount I pay in taxes, but it's because of the waste and stupidity I see in government, not the hand ups they could be giving. I'm a fan of hand ups, not hand outs.....I am in favour of heavily subsidized, or even free day care for a working mom even if it costs more, rather than social assistance to let her stay home. It breaks the cycle.
-
Question for JLCNuke or anyone with a military backround that doesn't believe in a minimum wage's usefullness -
Let me illustrate some of the problems with the "pay everyone a living wage" idea...
1. It's absurd to try and come up with a situation where one wage will be accepted as acceptable everywhere. What a 16 or 19 year old living for free with their parents in a LCOL area needs for an income to "live" is much different than what a single mother of 7 kids in a HCOL area needs. So where do you set the standard? Pay a 19 year old high school dropout with no ambition enough to support a family of 8 in a HCOL area? Make it a living wage for the kid living at home? (heck, our current min wage fits that criteria already). Some randomly chosen amount in-between the two? Probably the compromise that people would generally choose... or they'd tell us to make it based on everyone's individual situation..
2. So, if we make it based on their individual situation, then I'm only hiring the single, living at home people for my jobs that require no skills. Single mothers need not apply as I'm not paying more to get nothing more.
I have some acquaintances with military backrounds , and it seems for the last several decades USA military / gov't policy has been to have a minimum wage for them. By this i mean E-1 designation, lowest paygrade. With time and demonstrated expanded competance, soldiers can move up the payscale. But , the E-1 is effectively, a minimum wage. Officers, with more "people managing" responsibility, but not necessarily more technical competency than enilsted, make more $$ in O-1 grades and above. Middle managers might be a decent civilian counterpart term .So another minimum wage for officers as well.
More pay can be earned by having a higher technical skill level than average for the command- "pro-pay", or serving in a warzone 'tax free' , or simply being deployed away from homeport "sea pay". The 2nd and 3rd of those also having a minimum $$ mount associated with them.
Soldiers and sailors who were married were elegible for even more pay [ BHA basic housing allowance+ basic food allowance] so they could find appropriate housing for their families and not have to live on base in barracks, nor make their kids eat on base military food, bascially. Where the single soldier was expected to live in a concrete building on base- but the married soldier got his own yard and bathroom out of the deal usually. Add in the additional costs of the dependant wives/ husbands and children to the federal gov't [ taxes/ military budget] when you factor in the included health care. But both soldiers worked under the same job description, doing the same basic responsibilities.
This violates JLCNuke's rule # 2 from above....why would you employ anyone with dependents like the married soldier
How did we get to a basic level of "socialistic" care for miltary workers ; minimum wage , providing for basic food + clothing needs, full service health care, etc - but not for the taxpayers / citizens ...?
-
It is not the government's or our employers responsibility to pay me what I think I need. It is my personal responsibility to either find a way to earn enough to pay for what I want/need, or to adjust my lifestyle to be able to live within my earnings/pay.
I get this sentiment and agree with it to a certain point . . . but we know that people don't always make the best choices. Actually, it seems that the norm is to make the wrong choices. Knowing this, what do you propose should happen with all the people who are unable to adjust their lifestyle to live within their earnings and unable to find a job that allows them to earn enough for what they need?
I would recommend the government provide extremely basic shelter and food to them so that they have the basics of living. Beyond that, it's up to them really.
-
Question for JLCNuke or anyone with a military backround that doesn't believe in a minimum wage's usefullness -
Let me illustrate some of the problems with the "pay everyone a living wage" idea...
1. It's absurd to try and come up with a situation where one wage will be accepted as acceptable everywhere. What a 16 or 19 year old living for free with their parents in a LCOL area needs for an income to "live" is much different than what a single mother of 7 kids in a HCOL area needs. So where do you set the standard? Pay a 19 year old high school dropout with no ambition enough to support a family of 8 in a HCOL area? Make it a living wage for the kid living at home? (heck, our current min wage fits that criteria already). Some randomly chosen amount in-between the two? Probably the compromise that people would generally choose... or they'd tell us to make it based on everyone's individual situation..
2. So, if we make it based on their individual situation, then I'm only hiring the single, living at home people for my jobs that require no skills. Single mothers need not apply as I'm not paying more to get nothing more.
I have some acquaintances with military backrounds , and it seems for the last several decades USA military / gov't policy has been to have a minimum wage for them. By this i mean E-1 designation, lowest paygrade. With time and demonstrated expanded competance, soldiers can move up the payscale. But , the E-1 is effectively, a minimum wage. Officers, with more "people managing" responsibility, but not necessarily more technical competency than enilsted, make more $$ in O-1 grades and above. Middle managers might be a decent civilian counterpart term .So another minimum wage for officers as well.
More pay can be earned by having a higher technical skill level than average for the command- "pro-pay", or serving in a warzone 'tax free' , or simply being deployed away from homeport "sea pay". The 2nd and 3rd of those also having a minimum $$ mount associated with them.
Soldiers and sailors who were married were elegible for even more pay [ BHA basic housing allowance+ basic food allowance] so they could find appropriate housing for their families and not have to live on base in barracks, nor make their kids eat on base military food, bascially. Where the single soldier was expected to live in a concrete building on base- but the married soldier got his own yard and bathroom out of the deal usually. Add in the additional costs of the dependant wives/ husbands and children to the federal gov't [ taxes/ military budget] when you factor in the included health care. But both soldiers worked under the same job description, doing the same basic responsibilities.
This violates JLCNuke's rule # 2 from above....why would you employ anyone with dependents like the married soldier
How did we get to a basic level of "socialistic" care for miltary workers ; minimum wage , providing for basic food + clothing needs, full service health care, etc - but not for the taxpayers / citizens ...?
Yes, the military is engaged in social engineering. The minimum wage is also way below the US minimum wage btw, as there is no hourly or overtime pay for an E-1, but they don't work a 40 hour week.
That the US government does this stuff, doesn't mean it would work or should be acceptable in the civilian world (or really if it should be acceptable anywhere).
As for how we got there.. well, it takes some work to convince people to risk their lives for crap pay, ridiculous hours, shit quality of living and work/life balance, etc. To get people to give up the rights that most citizens have necessitates giving them some incentives....
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
-
I've always found these discussions extremely interesting. I get the idea of a "living wage" it makes conceptual sense to me, I guess there are differing definitions of what one means by living wage. I also think the circumstances one is in are an interesting caveat. Obviously it seems harsh to say that a single mother of one "put herself in that situation" as clearly it takes two to make a baby,
So, how would one feel if Republicans get their way and pass legislation making abortion illegal if say you can hear a heartbeat? It means a woman even if she or her partner used protection and it failed, would be forced to carry the pregnancy. And I know from personal situations even when the woman intends to give up the child for adoption, cannot. But it sounds like even though her ability to terminate the pregnancy is prevented by government, the government, and the posters feel the woman, soley, is responsible for all external costs? Doesn't sound too fair to me.
The fact is, a woman might be raising a child solo for all sorts of reasons, including that the father abandoned her and the child at any point after conception. There are some things out of one's control, including at times, being a single parent. These judgements seem uncharacteristically harsh for this internet community.
-
Question for JLCNuke or anyone with a military backround that doesn't believe in a minimum wage's usefullness -
Let me illustrate some of the problems with the "pay everyone a living wage" idea...
1. It's absurd to try and come up with a situation where one wage will be accepted as acceptable everywhere. What a 16 or 19 year old living for free with their parents in a LCOL area needs for an income to "live" is much different than what a single mother of 7 kids in a HCOL area needs. So where do you set the standard? Pay a 19 year old high school dropout with no ambition enough to support a family of 8 in a HCOL area? Make it a living wage for the kid living at home? (heck, our current min wage fits that criteria already). Some randomly chosen amount in-between the two? Probably the compromise that people would generally choose... or they'd tell us to make it based on everyone's individual situation..
2. So, if we make it based on their individual situation, then I'm only hiring the single, living at home people for my jobs that require no skills. Single mothers need not apply as I'm not paying more to get nothing more.
I have some acquaintances with military backrounds , and it seems for the last several decades USA military / gov't policy has been to have a minimum wage for them. By this i mean E-1 designation, lowest paygrade. With time and demonstrated expanded competance, soldiers can move up the payscale. But , the E-1 is effectively, a minimum wage. Officers, with more "people managing" responsibility, but not necessarily more technical competency than enilsted, make more $$ in O-1 grades and above. Middle managers might be a decent civilian counterpart term .So another minimum wage for officers as well.
More pay can be earned by having a higher technical skill level than average for the command- "pro-pay", or serving in a warzone 'tax free' , or simply being deployed away from homeport "sea pay". The 2nd and 3rd of those also having a minimum $$ mount associated with them.
Soldiers and sailors who were married were elegible for even more pay [ BHA basic housing allowance+ basic food allowance] so they could find appropriate housing for their families and not have to live on base in barracks, nor make their kids eat on base military food, bascially. Where the single soldier was expected to live in a concrete building on base- but the married soldier got his own yard and bathroom out of the deal usually. Add in the additional costs of the dependant wives/ husbands and children to the federal gov't [ taxes/ military budget] when you factor in the included health care. But both soldiers worked under the same job description, doing the same basic responsibilities.
This violates JLCNuke's rule # 2 from above....why would you employ anyone with dependents like the married soldier
How did we get to a basic level of "socialistic" care for miltary workers ; minimum wage , providing for basic food + clothing needs, full service health care, etc - but not for the taxpayers / citizens ...?
Yes, the military is engaged in social engineering. The minimum wage is also way below the US minimum wage btw, as there is no hourly or overtime pay for an E-1, but they don't work a 40 hour week.
That the US government does this stuff, doesn't mean it would work or should be acceptable in the civilian world (or really if it should be acceptable anywhere).
As for how we got there.. well, it takes some work to convince people to risk their lives for crap pay, ridiculous hours, shit quality of living and work/life balance, etc. To get people to give up the rights that most citizens have necessitates giving them some incentives....
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
yes, but military have their housing and food, clothing etc provided to them. After they are discharged they are eligible for benefits not available to civilians. Comparing a GI's pay with a civilian pay (or life) doesn't make sense.
-
This violates JLCNuke's rule # 2 from above....why would you employ anyone with dependents like the married soldier
How did we get to a basic level of "socialistic" care for miltary workers ; minimum wage , providing for basic food + clothing needs, full service health care, etc - but not for the taxpayers / citizens ...?
Because we don't have enough people wanting to be soldiers, that's why.
You employ the dude with dependents because there aren't a hundred other civilians lined up behind him all wanting to enlist.
Again, supply vs demand.
-
BTW; the Nordics don't have minimum wages. Instead, the unions are very strong, and negotiate tariff wages with the employers' unions. In sectors where the unions are less strong (or more commonly; where we have a lot of foreigners working), the unions and government can decide to use the tariffs as a minimum wage standard. So if you really dislike the government raising the minimum wages, maybe it is an idea to give more power to the unions? (:D)
This is an interesting point. Strong unions (and a large percentage of the work force covered by unions) are the free market solution to solving the problem we're discussing . . . yet most of the people against raising minimum wage tend to be against unions too.
Unions raise wages by restricting the supply of labor. Immigration lowers wages by increasing the supply of labor...
Yet most of the people in favor of unions, tend to also be in favor of more immigration.
I'm not sure that I agree with your initial assumptions there. Specifically, the focus on restricting supply of labour.
Unions restrict flow of labour via strikes in order to negotiate better terms. Restricting a flow of labour isn't where their power lies, their power lies in organizing a group of otherwise powerless employees.
Immigration as a whole significantly helps Canada's economy, not by providing an increased supply of labour and lowering wages but by providing skilled workers for jobs that otherwise couldn't be filled. While I support allowing people to seek asylum in our country for humanitarian reasons, I don't know anyone who is heartily in favour of unrestricted/unvetted immigration.
-
If you're a company benefiting from an employee's full-time labor, then you have a responsibility to pay that person enough so that the government is not subsidizing your business.
It astounds me that anyone would see the employee as the problem instead of the employer, who is clearly gaming the system to get cheap labor, while the taxpayers are picking up the bill.
This is gold.
-
Let's say a company pays workers $7 an hour and you think it's not a liveable wage. You want the company to pay $12/hour which you say is a liveable wage for, say, a single parent. (Arbitrary numbers used - just bear with me.)
There are two ways to proceed from here:
1. Force all companies to pay $12/hour, even to workers who don't need that sort of money (because they are in a LCOL area or are single), in order to be generous to single parents in HCOL areas who need that money.
2. Allow companies to pay $7 an hour, put give between $0-$5/hour in welfare to those who are in HCOL areas and/or larger families to tide them over so that they can have a frugal standard of living.
You might say that option 2 causes all taxpayers to have to fork out between $0-$5/hour per affected employee in welfare benefits. And that is correct. There is a cost to society of having a low minimum wage, and that cost is higher welfare spending.
But there is also a cost to society in option 1 - where everyone gets paid $12/hour:
(a) Some people whose skills are worth, say, $5-$7/hour and who therefore might be accommodated under the $7/hour min wage will lose their jobs and go onto complete welfare under a higher min wage.
(b) Everyone whose present job pays between $7 - $12/hour will find the real value of their income diminished. Either that, or their income will go up as a flow-on effect, which just leads to inflation which devalues everyone's income.
(c) Raising labour prices also has an effect on business profits. It is likely this will lead to higher prices for goods/services - especially at the cheap end of the market.
(d) Even if somehow companies magically accommodated a higher min wage without any flow-on effect to the price of goods, lower profits = lower share performance and lower tax on profits, which then affects everyone else in society, directly or indirectly, and causes lower revenue.
So, out of option 1 and option 2, both have a societal cost. You can't just say that a higher minimum wage will magically be absorbed by the companies - because even if it was, the boosting of a min wage has an inflationary effect on everyone else in society.
-
I would say that if you hire an employee full time that employee should not qualify for any government benefits. The requires the threshold for benefits to decrease or income to increase.
Minimum standards for living to me means a family has at least 1 room, a bathroom, kitchen, minimal food budget to purchase 2000 calories of rice and vegetables per person per day, clean water, access to public education, basic medicine, and preventative care. Cars, phones, TVs, vacation, new clothes and everything else is not required. Keep disabled, children, and elderly from starvation and living on the street. Everyone else should fend for themselves.
In NYC we have 15$/hr minimum wage. If you have 2 full time jobs washing dishes you are clearing 60k a year. Not bad in my opinion, and definitely livable.
I don’t agree that heathy able bodied people are somehow entitled to a certain standard of living. Sure if you are disabled, elderly or a child society should step in, but if you just don’t want to work or don’t want two jobs? Tough for you.
I also think it’s rediculous to think people are entitled to live in certain areas. Should NYC, Seattle, or San Francisco be required to house very poor people within their city limits? Why is this necessary when there are so many dying cities with high vacancy rates and cheap housing? You want to be a ward of the city or state you should be up for relocating. If you want to live in the most desirable places in the country you should have to work for it, and work hard for it.
I sometimes walk through the projects when I am walking to job sites here. Every time I see a 20 or 30 something man smoking weed and drinking at 11am it makes me want to scream. What a waste. Society owes that man nothing.
-
Most who don't want to see more social programs have no actual problem with the social programs in those countries. They just don't want to have to pay higher taxes to fund them.
The US spends 18.7% of its GDP on social welfare, Australia 17.8%.
The US is spending 18.7% of a USDD59.531 per capita GDP, or USD11,132 per capita.
Australia is spending 17.8% of a USD53,800 per capita GDP, or USD9,576 per capita.
As with US healthcare spending compared to other countries, it is plain there are inefficiencies, since other countries pay less and have better outcomes. So it's not clear that paying higher taxes is actually necessary to fund better programmes.
-
I did a search on Craigslist and found that most 1 bedroom apartments in Irvine are over $1700. In surrounding areas it looks like most are over $1500. So getting a cheaper apartment may not be possible for her. Plus there are the costs of moving. I can't imagine how I would make it work on that much money either. I mean, how does she afford childcare, and food, and car maintenance, etc....
She basically has to give up her kid for adoption, or find a partner who makes the same amount to live with and help support her and her kid. In other words, it's impossible to be a single parent in Irvine and survive on that salary.
I don't think asking the CEO of a company to pay its employees more is going to work though. He's not going to ask to be payed less and ask to give that money to the lowest paid employees. His greed is part of what got him into that position in the first place. People who would like the minimum wage to be increased to a living wage need to vote for people who will make that happen, or if it's possible to pass a minimum wage increase through a proposition, do that. That means they have to pay attention to their local and state politics and hold their politicians accountable. When the wealth gap increases enough that there are enough people not able to survive on their salaries to swing the vote in their favor, then maybe things will turn around.
Right now I think people are just going into debt to survive so they aren't yet squeezed enough to actually take the time to vote for people/policies that would help them.
-
Not Jamie Dimon's responsibility. I'd vote for universal basic income as a solution, like what Andrew Yang is proposing.
-
Not Jamie Dimon's responsibility. I'd vote for universal basic income as a solution, like what Andrew Yang is proposing.
Whether or not it's his responsibility, the Congresswoman did succeed in making me wonder in what way he was clever enough to be earning his $30m a year.
-
The company isn't burdening anyone with anything.
Yeah sure, most workers earning minimum wage can just walk and find something paying better. This side of the argument I think comes from those who have been far removed from doing bottom of the barrel shitty jobs, or don't actually realize that their circumstances could possibly be a little more exceptional than the average Joe-bag-of-donuts. There will always be outliers- the people who don't want to work - but that's really the exception.
And I'm not sure why everybody has to try to reinvent the wheel for this discussion. People study this shit:
http://livingwage.mit.edu/ (http://livingwage.mit.edu/)
Companies are allowed to burden tax payers all the time. Just look at the new tax law and how many fortune 500 companies paid nothing, and how much our debt and deficit are increasing. If a company doesn't pay someone enough to afford the basic necessities of life, tax payers get to subsidize the workers. And it's not just shitty pay that these companies get away with. It's also cutting hours so the worker either doesn't qualify for benefits or they offer shitty benefits. And then we can subsidize them again when they get to old and sick to work any more. I'm going to guess that those who only make $15-20k per year aren't really going to save a whole lot and are planning on Social Security as a retirement plan.
Regarding the US Military- Not too long ago a lot of military members would qualify for food stamps. I guess we could argue that it's not the governments (their employer's) responsibility to make sure they are payed well, but then again if you have an all volunteer fighting force you probably want to make sure they have something to fight for.
ETA: I think Costco is a good example of a living wage paying company. When you pay your workers better, you'll get better, more loyal harder working employees who will stick around. Convince me why Walmart can't follow that model.
-
Most who don't want to see more social programs have no actual problem with the social programs in those countries. They just don't want to have to pay higher taxes to fund them.
The US spends 18.7% of its GDP on social welfare, Australia 17.8%.
The US is spending 18.7% of a USDD59.531 per capita GDP, or USD11,132 per capita.
Australia is spending 17.8% of a USD53,800 per capita GDP, or USD9,576 per capita.
As with US healthcare spending compared to other countries, it is plain there are inefficiencies, since other countries pay less and have better outcomes. So it's not clear that paying higher taxes is actually necessary to fund better programmes.
We are very inefficient with our use of money. I'd argue that we waste too much of it on bureaucracy instead of the people that it's meant to help. The major difference between the U.S. and most countries that provide all of these things(whatever you're concerned about) is the number of people. We have so many more people and thus have developed all these crazy layers to administer all these programs. Also, people have some kind of feel bad over giving out money so they don't want to do it. For instance, we could eliminate veteran's assistance programs by just giving everyone a 6-figure payout when they get out of the service. It would be cheaper (assuming we had universal healthcare & didn't need to provide those services anymore). The general public feels better that I get educational assistance, small business loan assistance, home loan assistance, whatever. They feel bad about the idea that I could work for 6 years and then get a giant payout. I am not advocating that we get rid of the VA, just making an example of something I'm familiar with.
[I'm a veteran. I had a degree when I went in. I earned my M.B.A. while I was in. I have since earned 3 more degrees with my GI bill just to get the housing allowance. The government has spent well over $250K giving me benefits. I did a bunch of math one time figuring out how much money they've paid me plus what I'll probably get in the future. My partner is also a veteran on disability. I could be retired already haha]
-
BTW; the Nordics don't have minimum wages. Instead, the unions are very strong, and negotiate tariff wages with the employers' unions. In sectors where the unions are less strong (or more commonly; where we have a lot of foreigners working), the unions and government can decide to use the tariffs as a minimum wage standard. So if you really dislike the government raising the minimum wages, maybe it is an idea to give more power to the unions? (:D)
This is an interesting point. Strong unions (and a large percentage of the work force covered by unions) are the free market solution to solving the problem we're discussing . . . yet most of the people against raising minimum wage tend to be against unions too.
Unions raise wages by restricting the supply of labor. Immigration lowers wages by increasing the supply of labor...
Yet most of the people in favor of unions, tend to also be in favor of more immigration.
I'm not sure that I agree with your initial assumptions there. Specifically, the focus on restricting supply of labour.
Unions restrict flow of labour via strikes in order to negotiate better terms. Restricting a flow of labour isn't where their power lies, their power lies in organizing a group of otherwise powerless employees.
Immigration as a whole significantly helps Canada's economy, not by providing an increased supply of labour and lowering wages but by providing skilled workers for jobs that otherwise couldn't be filled. While I support allowing people to seek asylum in our country for humanitarian reasons, I don't know anyone who is heartily in favour of unrestricted/unvetted immigration.
Restricting labor supply is exactly how unions work. (And I'm not saying that's a bad thing). You're a developer and want to construct a building or your a car manufacturer. You'd like to bring in folks who don't currently have a job and pay them a lot less (to save money and because their productivity is lower), but the union won't let you. You can only hire from the smaller number of union members who demand higher wages.
I can't speak for Canada, but in the US, employers use Legal Guest Worker programs (H1-B, H2-A, etc.) to increase the labor supply to avoid having to pay higher wages.
As for Open Borders, the Libertarians/Cato/Reason/Kochs are all for unfettered immigration. The Democrats current stance seems to be Anti-Anti-Open Borders. They aren't explicitly for Open Borders, but they're against any measures to effectively enforce them. The Republican Elite combined with the Chamber of Commerce types are all for the status quo where millions of immigrants (legal and illegal) continue to depress wages for US citizens.
-
I would say that if you hire an employee full time that employee should not qualify for any government benefits. The requires the threshold for benefits to decrease or income to increase.
What's a government benefit?
Social Security?
MediCare?
K-12 Public Schooling?
Garbage Collection?
Fire Department?
-
BTW; the Nordics don't have minimum wages. Instead, the unions are very strong, and negotiate tariff wages with the employers' unions. In sectors where the unions are less strong (or more commonly; where we have a lot of foreigners working), the unions and government can decide to use the tariffs as a minimum wage standard. So if you really dislike the government raising the minimum wages, maybe it is an idea to give more power to the unions? (:D)
This is an interesting point. Strong unions (and a large percentage of the work force covered by unions) are the free market solution to solving the problem we're discussing . . . yet most of the people against raising minimum wage tend to be against unions too.
Unions raise wages by restricting the supply of labor. Immigration lowers wages by increasing the supply of labor...
Yet most of the people in favor of unions, tend to also be in favor of more immigration.
I'm not sure that I agree with your initial assumptions there. Specifically, the focus on restricting supply of labour.
Unions restrict flow of labour via strikes in order to negotiate better terms. Restricting a flow of labour isn't where their power lies, their power lies in organizing a group of otherwise powerless employees.
Immigration as a whole significantly helps Canada's economy, not by providing an increased supply of labour and lowering wages but by providing skilled workers for jobs that otherwise couldn't be filled. While I support allowing people to seek asylum in our country for humanitarian reasons, I don't know anyone who is heartily in favour of unrestricted/unvetted immigration.
Restricting labor supply is exactly how unions work in the US. (And I'm not saying that's a bad thing). You're a developer and want to construct a building or your a car manufacturer. You'd like to bring in folks who don't currently have a job and pay them a lot less (to save money and because their productivity is lower), but the union won't let you. You can only hire from the smaller number of union members who demand higher wages.
fixed that for you
-
I would say that if you hire an employee full time that employee should not qualify for any government benefits. The requires the threshold for benefits to decrease or income to increase.
What's a government benefit?
Social Security?
MediCare?
K-12 Public Schooling?
Garbage Collection?
Fire Department?
Fair point, I mean specifically those afforded to only those with low income such as subsidized housing, food stamps, etc. My point being that either the minimum wage is adequate and the threshold for these welfare programs is too high, or the minimum wage is inadequate and the threshold is ok. You shouldn’t be able to work full time and still qualify for these programs. If you can work full time at the federal minimum wage and still qualify for federal subsidies then the program is designed to benefit the employer. One or the other has to change.
-
I would say that if you hire an employee full time that employee should not qualify for any government benefits. The requires the threshold for benefits to decrease or income to increase.
What's a government benefit?
Social Security?
MediCare?
K-12 Public Schooling?
Garbage Collection?
Fire Department?
Fair point, I mean specifically those afforded to only those with low income such as subsidized housing, food stamps, etc. My point being that either the minimum wage is adequate and the threshold for these welfare programs is too high, or the minimum wage is inadequate and the threshold is ok. You shouldn’t be able to work full time and still qualify for these programs. If you can work full time at the federal minimum wage and still qualify for federal subsidies then the program is designed to benefit the employer. One or the other has to change.
Maybe.
The initial reason these benefits were made available to full-time workers, was because workers faced a steep marginal rate if the took a job and lost all their benefits. If you're getting $1100/mo (Numbers made up for illustrative purposes only) in benefits and then take a $1300/mo job but lose the benefits then you're effectively working 40 hours a week for $200/mo.
Now it is possible in the absence of these gov't benefits that employers would have to raise wages to attract workers, and if that's the case then these programs are a subsidy.
But it's also possible that they'd still be able to fill these positions without raising wages, and in that case it's not a subsidy.
Until we know the answer to that question, it's impossible to determine if these benefits are a subsidy to employers.
-
BTW; the Nordics don't have minimum wages. Instead, the unions are very strong, and negotiate tariff wages with the employers' unions. In sectors where the unions are less strong (or more commonly; where we have a lot of foreigners working), the unions and government can decide to use the tariffs as a minimum wage standard. So if you really dislike the government raising the minimum wages, maybe it is an idea to give more power to the unions? (:D)
This is an interesting point. Strong unions (and a large percentage of the work force covered by unions) are the free market solution to solving the problem we're discussing . . . yet most of the people against raising minimum wage tend to be against unions too.
Unions raise wages by restricting the supply of labor. Immigration lowers wages by increasing the supply of labor...
Yet most of the people in favor of unions, tend to also be in favor of more immigration.
I'm not sure that I agree with your initial assumptions there. Specifically, the focus on restricting supply of labour.
Unions restrict flow of labour via strikes in order to negotiate better terms. Restricting a flow of labour isn't where their power lies, their power lies in organizing a group of otherwise powerless employees.
Immigration as a whole significantly helps Canada's economy, not by providing an increased supply of labour and lowering wages but by providing skilled workers for jobs that otherwise couldn't be filled. While I support allowing people to seek asylum in our country for humanitarian reasons, I don't know anyone who is heartily in favour of unrestricted/unvetted immigration.
Restricting labor supply is exactly how unions work. (And I'm not saying that's a bad thing). You're a developer and want to construct a building or your a car manufacturer. You'd like to bring in folks who don't currently have a job and pay them a lot less (to save money and because their productivity is lower), but the union won't let you. You can only hire from the smaller number of union members who demand higher wages.
I can't speak for Canada, but in the US, employers use Legal Guest Worker programs (H1-B, H2-A, etc.) to increase the labor supply to avoid having to pay higher wages.
As for Open Borders, the Libertarians/Cato/Reason/Kochs are all for unfettered immigration. The Democrats current stance seems to be Anti-Anti-Open Borders. They aren't explicitly for Open Borders, but they're against any measures to effectively enforce them. The Republican Elite combined with the Chamber of Commerce types are all for the status quo where millions of immigrants (legal and illegal) continue to depress wages for US citizens.
Funny how it's always the case that people arguing against trade unions -
1) assume that "trades union" inevitably means a closed shop system, and
2) use examples such as building labourers and heavy manufacturing shop floor workers, rather than, oh lets just say, doctors.
-
BTW; the Nordics don't have minimum wages. Instead, the unions are very strong, and negotiate tariff wages with the employers' unions. In sectors where the unions are less strong (or more commonly; where we have a lot of foreigners working), the unions and government can decide to use the tariffs as a minimum wage standard. So if you really dislike the government raising the minimum wages, maybe it is an idea to give more power to the unions? (:D)
This is an interesting point. Strong unions (and a large percentage of the work force covered by unions) are the free market solution to solving the problem we're discussing . . . yet most of the people against raising minimum wage tend to be against unions too.
Unions raise wages by restricting the supply of labor. Immigration lowers wages by increasing the supply of labor...
Yet most of the people in favor of unions, tend to also be in favor of more immigration.
I'm not sure that I agree with your initial assumptions there. Specifically, the focus on restricting supply of labour.
Unions restrict flow of labour via strikes in order to negotiate better terms. Restricting a flow of labour isn't where their power lies, their power lies in organizing a group of otherwise powerless employees.
Immigration as a whole significantly helps Canada's economy, not by providing an increased supply of labour and lowering wages but by providing skilled workers for jobs that otherwise couldn't be filled. While I support allowing people to seek asylum in our country for humanitarian reasons, I don't know anyone who is heartily in favour of unrestricted/unvetted immigration.
Restricting labor supply is exactly how unions work. (And I'm not saying that's a bad thing). You're a developer and want to construct a building or your a car manufacturer. You'd like to bring in folks who don't currently have a job and pay them a lot less (to save money and because their productivity is lower), but the union won't let you. You can only hire from the smaller number of union members who demand higher wages.
I can't speak for Canada, but in the US, employers use Legal Guest Worker programs (H1-B, H2-A, etc.) to increase the labor supply to avoid having to pay higher wages.
As for Open Borders, the Libertarians/Cato/Reason/Kochs are all for unfettered immigration. The Democrats current stance seems to be Anti-Anti-Open Borders. They aren't explicitly for Open Borders, but they're against any measures to effectively enforce them. The Republican Elite combined with the Chamber of Commerce types are all for the status quo where millions of immigrants (legal and illegal) continue to depress wages for US citizens.
Funny how it's always the case that people arguing against trade unions -
1) assume that "trades union" inevitably means a closed shop system, and
2) use examples such as building labourers and heavy manufacturing shop floor workers, rather than, oh lets just say, doctors.
Oh, I am totally against the way the AMA restricts the supply of medical care in the US. Laws should be changed to allow NPs and PAs to do a lot more. I think most occupational licensing regimes should be abolished.
-
So I went back to re-listen to this. Most of the arguments here in the thread are about minimum wage. Her gross income is 35,070 per annum. The congresswoman estimated withholdings (probably taxes, healthcare, etc) to get net of 29,100 per annum.
Her gross salary of 35,070 is 16.86/hour. This is quoted in the video as a basic,
No skill, right out of high school job. This is already well above minimum wage AND higher than what is proposed in many areas.
The arguments on this thread are about minimum wage. A national minimum wage above 16.86/ hour would have some nasty unintended consequences. Hell, RN starting hourly wages aren’t that far off from this number. And that is a degreed position.
This is nuts. The employee needs MMM.
Plus, what jobs can you name that actually pay minimum wage? I can’t think of many outside of cashier in restaurant or retail. Labor jobs pay better. Warehousing pays better. Delivery drivers pay better. Cleaning services pay better. Bussing and waiting end up paying better after tips.
What is a minimum wage job?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
$35k USD a year ($50k AUD per year) is more than what I spend each year on expenses - it's about even if I include imputed rent - which is ridiculous because I make way more than the person who is the topic of this thread. And I could identify a million ways to cut my expenses, if I was earning such a modest hourly rate that I wasn't willing to pay for convenience (because it didn't make financial sense).
If you can't budget properly don't ask the state to help. Sort your own shit out.
-
BTW; the Nordics don't have minimum wages. Instead, the unions are very strong, and negotiate tariff wages with the employers' unions. In sectors where the unions are less strong (or more commonly; where we have a lot of foreigners working), the unions and government can decide to use the tariffs as a minimum wage standard. So if you really dislike the government raising the minimum wages, maybe it is an idea to give more power to the unions? (:D)
This is an interesting point. Strong unions (and a large percentage of the work force covered by unions) are the free market solution to solving the problem we're discussing . . . yet most of the people against raising minimum wage tend to be against unions too.
Unions raise wages by restricting the supply of labor. Immigration lowers wages by increasing the supply of labor...
Yet most of the people in favor of unions, tend to also be in favor of more immigration.
I'm not sure that I agree with your initial assumptions there. Specifically, the focus on restricting supply of labour.
Unions restrict flow of labour via strikes in order to negotiate better terms. Restricting a flow of labour isn't where their power lies, their power lies in organizing a group of otherwise powerless employees.
Immigration as a whole significantly helps Canada's economy, not by providing an increased supply of labour and lowering wages but by providing skilled workers for jobs that otherwise couldn't be filled. While I support allowing people to seek asylum in our country for humanitarian reasons, I don't know anyone who is heartily in favour of unrestricted/unvetted immigration.
Restricting labor supply is exactly how unions work. (And I'm not saying that's a bad thing). You're a developer and want to construct a building or your a car manufacturer. You'd like to bring in folks who don't currently have a job and pay them a lot less (to save money and because their productivity is lower), but the union won't let you. You can only hire from the smaller number of union members who demand higher wages.
If a company wants to hire non-unionized help, they're free to do so. Unions have no power to prevent a company from doing that.
If a company wants to hire a union worker though, then yes, they have to negotiate with the union to come to fair terms. This is in fact the only reason that unions have any power. But you make it sound like restriction of labour is the purpose of unions. Restriction of labour is the last thing that a union wants to do. A union is healthiest and best functioning when most of it's members are working and earning money . . . labor restriction is used solely to negotiate fair terms. The goal is always to keep members of the union working and busy.
I can't speak for Canada, but in the US, employers use Legal Guest Worker programs (H1-B, H2-A, etc.) to increase the labor supply to avoid having to pay higher wages.
I have no knowledge of H2-A visas so can't comment, but am familiar with the H1-B visa. Your argument about H1-B visa workers makes no sense. They are paid 2.8% more than their American counterparts (https://www.glassdoor.com/research/h1b-workers/ (https://www.glassdoor.com/research/h1b-workers/)) on average. The idea that companies use H1-B visas to lower wages is therefore demonstrably incorrect. Therefore it's an example of increasing the labour supply because of a shortage of skilled workers . . . not to pay people less. The H1-B visa program helps to keep US companies competitive. Without it your country will fall behind because there aren't enough talented Americans to fill the positions needed. We have the same problem here in Canada, which I mentioned in my last post.
As for Open Borders, the Libertarians/Cato/Reason/Kochs are all for unfettered immigration. The Democrats current stance seems to be Anti-Anti-Open Borders. They aren't explicitly for Open Borders, but they're against any measures to effectively enforce them. The Republican Elite combined with the Chamber of Commerce types are all for the status quo where millions of immigrants (legal and illegal) continue to depress wages for US citizens.
Can you give some examples where democrats are opposing any measure to effectively enforce borders?
-
So I went back to re-listen to this. Most of the arguments here in the thread are about minimum wage. Her gross income is 35,070 per annum. The congresswoman estimated withholdings (probably taxes, healthcare, etc) to get net of 29,100 per annum.
Her gross salary of 35,070 is 16.86/hour. This is quoted in the video as a basic,
No skill, right out of high school job. This is already well above minimum wage AND higher than what is proposed in many areas.
The arguments on this thread are about minimum wage. A national minimum wage above 16.86/ hour would have some nasty unintended consequences. Hell, RN starting hourly wages aren’t that far off from this number. And that is a degreed position.
This is nuts. The employee needs MMM.
Plus, what jobs can you name that actually pay minimum wage? I can’t think of many outside of cashier in restaurant or retail. Labor jobs pay better. Warehousing pays better. Delivery drivers pay better. Cleaning services pay better. Bussing and waiting end up paying better after tips.
What is a minimum wage job?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And wait! Employee had a budget shortfall of 567/month. That would be gross 683/month if she needed to get that from W2.
That is 8,196/year, bringing here break even salary to 44,266/ year for an hourly rate of $20.80.
And that doesn’t account for savings, fun, emergencies, etc.
So now the living wage is 20.80/hour. Is that what you’re arguing???
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
So I went back to re-listen to this. Most of the arguments here in the thread are about minimum wage. Her gross income is 35,070 per annum. The congresswoman estimated withholdings (probably taxes, healthcare, etc) to get net of 29,100 per annum.
Her gross salary of 35,070 is 16.86/hour. This is quoted in the video as a basic,
No skill, right out of high school job. This is already well above minimum wage AND higher than what is proposed in many areas.
The arguments on this thread are about minimum wage. A national minimum wage above 16.86/ hour would have some nasty unintended consequences. Hell, RN starting hourly wages aren’t that far off from this number. And that is a degreed position.
This is nuts. The employee needs MMM.
Plus, what jobs can you name that actually pay minimum wage? I can’t think of many outside of cashier in restaurant or retail. Labor jobs pay better. Warehousing pays better. Delivery drivers pay better. Cleaning services pay better. Bussing and waiting end up paying better after tips.
What is a minimum wage job?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What's even more ridiculous about this whole discussion is that if I could work an entry level, no pressure, no education job then why would I go to college, work a stressful job, etc? If every position paid enough to support a family, then there wouldn't be any accountants. There would be a hell of a lot of park rangers, walmart greeters, hostesses, crossing guards, tour guides, etc.
-
What's even more ridiculous about this whole discussion is that if I could work an entry level, no pressure, no education job then why would I go to college, work a stressful job, etc? If every position paid enough to support a family, then there wouldn't be any accountants. There would be a hell of a lot of park rangers, walmart greeters, hostesses, crossing guards, tour guides, etc.
There would still be accountants because there are families that don't want to share a bed/room with their children, or might want to take a vacation, or go to the movies or eat at restaurants sometimes. Most people want more than a barebones life- especially if they have kids.
The example budget being discussed has a person in the hole every month with only providing for "The Four Walls" (as Dave Ramsey calls them). Even if we slash her food budget in half, take away her car payment on an old car, and cut her cell phone down to 20 a month, the sample budget is still in the hole. I'm not seeing how much more mustachian the sample budget can get than the changes I've suggested.
There might be some extreme things to do with housing - but having a small child might make that much harder.
-
What's even more ridiculous about this whole discussion is that if I could work an entry level, no pressure, no education job then why would I go to college, work a stressful job, etc? If every position paid enough to support a family, then there wouldn't be any accountants. There would be a hell of a lot of park rangers, walmart greeters, hostesses, crossing guards, tour guides, etc.
There would still be accountants because there are families that don't want to share a bed/room with their children, or might want to take a vacation, or go to the movies or eat at restaurants sometimes. Most people want more than a barebones life- especially if they have kids.
The example budget being discussed has a person in the hole every month with only providing for "The Four Walls" (as Dave Ramsey calls them). Even if we slash her food budget in half, take away her car payment on an old car, and cut her cell phone down to 20 a month, the sample budget is still in the hole. I'm not seeing how much more mustachian the sample budget can get than the changes I've suggested.
There might be some extreme things to do with housing - but having a small child might make that much harder.
What?!? The 1br apartment is 1600/month. Zillow rentals shows many other places for cheaper. Especially with a car, she can move somewhere cheaper.
And moving costs? She has a van. That can pack up every bit of her small apartment.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
What's even more ridiculous about this whole discussion is that if I could work an entry level, no pressure, no education job then why would I go to college, work a stressful job, etc? If every position paid enough to support a family, then there wouldn't be any accountants. There would be a hell of a lot of park rangers, walmart greeters, hostesses, crossing guards, tour guides, etc.
There would still be accountants because there are families that don't want to share a bed/room with their children, or might want to take a vacation, or go to the movies or eat at restaurants sometimes. Most people want more than a barebones life- especially if they have kids.
The example budget being discussed has a person in the hole every month with only providing for "The Four Walls" (as Dave Ramsey calls them). Even if we slash her food budget in half, take away her car payment on an old car, and cut her cell phone down to 20 a month, the sample budget is still in the hole. I'm not seeing how much more mustachian the sample budget can get than the changes I've suggested.
There might be some extreme things to do with housing - but having a small child might make that much harder.
What?!? The 1br apartment is 1600/month. Zillow rentals shows many other places for cheaper. Especially with a car, she can move somewhere cheaper.
And moving costs? She has a van. That can pack up every bit of her small apartment.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
hmm - I'm definitely not seeing what you are seeing then. I looked on both zillow and apartments.com and didn't see any available apartments under 1200 a month (in Irvine) that weren't a renting a room in a shared home. I would call sharing a home with strangers when you have a kid to be "extreme" for most people. And let's face it, most professionals who are renting a room out in their home probably don't want a kindergartner running around.
While there might not be physical moving expenses, it is hard to come up with first month, last month and security deposit (so three months rent up front) for a person that is in the hole (or even breaking even) every month.
I'm also figuring that there are constraints with post school childcare pick up times and job ending times that would make moving extremely far out for cheaper housing difficult. I have family that lived in Irvine (in an apartment) for a while and it took forever to get anywhere because of traffic.
FWIW - I live in a place with absolutely zero traffic and it is a race to make it to childcare pick up in time after we finish work. And you have to make it on time or else there are extra fees.
I'm not saying it is impossible to make it work - I'm saying it would be darn hard to make it work in the best of circumstances. And life rarely presents us the best circumstances all of the time.
-
What's even more ridiculous about this whole discussion is that if I could work an entry level, no pressure, no education job then why would I go to college, work a stressful job, etc? If every position paid enough to support a family, then there wouldn't be any accountants. There would be a hell of a lot of park rangers, walmart greeters, hostesses, crossing guards, tour guides, etc.
There would still be accountants because there are families that don't want to share a bed/room with their children, or might want to take a vacation, or go to the movies or eat at restaurants sometimes. Most people want more than a barebones life- especially if they have kids.
The example budget being discussed has a person in the hole every month with only providing for "The Four Walls" (as Dave Ramsey calls them). Even if we slash her food budget in half, take away her car payment on an old car, and cut her cell phone down to 20 a month, the sample budget is still in the hole. I'm not seeing how much more mustachian the sample budget can get than the changes I've suggested.
There might be some extreme things to do with housing - but having a small child might make that much harder.
What?!? The 1br apartment is 1600/month. Zillow rentals shows many other places for cheaper. Especially with a car, she can move somewhere cheaper.
And moving costs? She has a van. That can pack up every bit of her small apartment.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah, I was just looking....1br close to Irvine for $1195: https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_rent/2092720886_zpid/0-316828_price/0-1250_mp/33.881105,-117.648296,33.599322,-118.017025_rect/11_zm/
I don't know what's a reasonable distance out there, but just assuming that someone has to pay average rent someplace is just as bad as assuming that someone has average household income for that area.
-
So I went back to re-listen to this. Most of the arguments here in the thread are about minimum wage. Her gross income is 35,070 per annum. The congresswoman estimated withholdings (probably taxes, healthcare, etc) to get net of 29,100 per annum.
Her gross salary of 35,070 is 16.86/hour. This is quoted in the video as a basic,
No skill, right out of high school job. This is already well above minimum wage AND higher than what is proposed in many areas.
The arguments on this thread are about minimum wage. A national minimum wage above 16.86/ hour would have some nasty unintended consequences. Hell, RN starting hourly wages aren’t that far off from this number. And that is a degreed position.
This is nuts. The employee needs MMM.
Plus, what jobs can you name that actually pay minimum wage? I can’t think of many outside of cashier in restaurant or retail. Labor jobs pay better. Warehousing pays better. Delivery drivers pay better. Cleaning services pay better. Bussing and waiting end up paying better after tips.
What is a minimum wage job?
Ha, the first time I saw her giving her estimated numbers all I could think was, "this is no way to do a case study, she needs to give us more information. Here's the preferred case study format, fill it out and get back to us."
But seriously, the way she just threw some numbers out and asked him what this employee should do, is a ridiculous question that can't be properly answered in the format she's demanding. Then all the news sites spin the story with a headline like "JP Morgan CEO can't explain how his low paid employee should budget her salary" or "Katie Porter Stumps JPMorgan Chase’s Jamie Dimon With Question About Employee’s Income". No, he said he can't answer her question without taking some time to look at the numbers, which is an absolutely fair response.
To be clear, I have no interest in defending Jamie Dimon, I'm just trying to call it like I see it.
-
What's even more ridiculous about this whole discussion is that if I could work an entry level, no pressure, no education job then why would I go to college, work a stressful job, etc? If every position paid enough to support a family, then there wouldn't be any accountants. There would be a hell of a lot of park rangers, walmart greeters, hostesses, crossing guards, tour guides, etc.
There would still be accountants because there are families that don't want to share a bed/room with their children, or might want to take a vacation, or go to the movies or eat at restaurants sometimes. Most people want more than a barebones life- especially if they have kids.
The example budget being discussed has a person in the hole every month with only providing for "The Four Walls" (as Dave Ramsey calls them). Even if we slash her food budget in half, take away her car payment on an old car, and cut her cell phone down to 20 a month, the sample budget is still in the hole. I'm not seeing how much more mustachian the sample budget can get than the changes I've suggested.
There might be some extreme things to do with housing - but having a small child might make that much harder.
What?!? The 1br apartment is 1600/month. Zillow rentals shows many other places for cheaper. Especially with a car, she can move somewhere cheaper.
And moving costs? She has a van. That can pack up every bit of her small apartment.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah, I was just looking....1br close to Irvine for $1195: https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_rent/2092720886_zpid/0-316828_price/0-1250_mp/33.881105,-117.648296,33.599322,-118.017025_rect/11_zm/
I don't know what's a reasonable distance out there, but just assuming that someone has to pay average rent someplace is just as bad as assuming that someone has average household income for that area.
I know Irvine reasonably well - that would be about 30 -40 minutes to the Spectrum area, maybe 20 minutes to UC Irvine in typical traffic. So it would definitely depend on where the job is located and whether there is available cheap after school care in Costa Mesa that has a doable pick up time. FWIW - that was only one apartment that I saw. I also saw two in Garden Grove, but the traffic would make that REALLY tough.
-
Why does it have to be Irvine? Looks like Santa Ana has plenty of options.
I don’t know LA, but you’ve got a car. Go find a place.
I understand there are going to be constraints. But this employee is living a life that has to be financed. Even with 30k a year in net cash every year, as an entry level unskilled worker. Thats ludicrous.
Or I find 76 options in the area for a 2br at 2k or less. Employee has no friends to live with? A roommate brings her costs down to 1k/month housing, easily beating her monthly shortfall, and leaving some left over.
Story is, when you have no money due to your housing choices, you figure it out. Employee needs to figure it out.
Let me say it again. 30k NET cash annually.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
So I went back to re-listen to this. Most of the arguments here in the thread are about minimum wage. Her gross income is 35,070 per annum. The congresswoman estimated withholdings (probably taxes, healthcare, etc) to get net of 29,100 per annum.
Her gross salary of 35,070 is 16.86/hour. This is quoted in the video as a basic,
No skill, right out of high school job. This is already well above minimum wage AND higher than what is proposed in many areas.
The arguments on this thread are about minimum wage. A national minimum wage above 16.86/ hour would have some nasty unintended consequences. Hell, RN starting hourly wages aren’t that far off from this number. And that is a degreed position.
This is nuts. The employee needs MMM.
Plus, what jobs can you name that actually pay minimum wage? I can’t think of many outside of cashier in restaurant or retail. Labor jobs pay better. Warehousing pays better. Delivery drivers pay better. Cleaning services pay better. Bussing and waiting end up paying better after tips.
What is a minimum wage job?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And wait! Employee had a budget shortfall of 567/month. That would be gross 683/month if she needed to get that from W2.
That is 8,196/year, bringing here break even salary to 44,266/ year for an hourly rate of $20.80.
And that doesn’t account for savings, fun, emergencies, etc.
So now the living wage is 20.80/hour. Is that what you’re arguing???
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't think I would support a minimum wage of $21/hr, and I honestly don't know many people who would.
Her biggest problem is that she lives in Irvine. Her second biggest problem is that she has to pay for childcare.
Sure, it's not going to be a piece of cake to find cheaper housing in an expensive area, especially with a kid. But you know, if life was a piece of cake, she wouldn't even be in this situation. You wanna get ahead, you gotta work for it. My friend who was a single mom in Seattle, lived with her daughter in the house of an old Taiwanese couple. She paid them in cash, and they were even able to watch her daughter for a couple hours in emergencies. Yeah, it wasn't easy to find, and it sucked living in someone else's house, but if that's what you have to do to stay out of debt, you do it.
-
I wish The CEO would have said, "I think she should reduce her expenses and live below her means". I think that's what the congresswoman wanted him to say, she seemed to be baiting him and probably had a lot of debate points ready to go.
ETA: I don't think the Department of Agriculture defines a low cost food budget as "Ramen Noodles". I bit of a stretch there...
-
Right now my wife and I ( I treat her as a roommate in my Fire Calc spreadsheet), spend 1850 a month on a co-op in NYC. We used to spend 2250 on a 2BR in Manhattan proper. Obviously what I’m saying is Anecdotal, but so is the story about the teller, and once upon a time I was a teller working for Chase living near NYC.
We spend, gasp, 40k a year on everything. An extremely unmustachian 150 on cable, 100 on cell phones, 650 total on car finance, garage spot, maint,gas and GEICO, 450 on health insurance.
We also send 5k a year to the city just on city taxes as a worker living inside the 5 boroughs (not included in that 40k, just illustrating how expensive NYC can be). My wife does NOT have a mustache at all but she is more typically frugal. The fact that we have a car in the most expansive place in America to have one, spend like Emperors on so many items and burn only 10k more a year (what id guess a typical kid would cost us) tells me she has a lot of room for improvement. We save less than I’d like but my wife has a Government pension, and I’m hopefully due for some big career jumps from certifications I’m about to finish, but this woman has a ton of earnings to gain by hustling at work, I used to make 100-250 a month opening and helping customers with accounts.
All that said, inequality is insane, CEO pay is out of control, taxes are way too low on the ultra wealthy, and it’s either going to be fixed through legislation or there will be a serious problem eventually like a war or god knows which would awful. I’m a huge fan of Katie Porter and I think the spirit behind her point is right on, just this cherry picked example was too easily shown to be on shaky grounds by the serious go getters in this community (I’m not one, I only save 45% of my salary currently ).
I hope things change for the better for those amongst us who don’t have our advantages.
-
I've always found these discussions extremely interesting. I get the idea of a "living wage" it makes conceptual sense to me, I guess there are differing definitions of what one means by living wage. I also think the circumstances one is in are an interesting caveat. Obviously it seems harsh to say that a single mother of one "put herself in that situation" as clearly it takes two to make a baby,
So, how would one feel if Republicans get their way and pass legislation making abortion illegal if say you can hear a heartbeat? It means a woman even if she or her partner used protection and it failed, would be forced to carry the pregnancy. And I know from personal situations even when the woman intends to give up the child for adoption, cannot. But it sounds like even though her ability to terminate the pregnancy is prevented by government, the government, and the posters feel the woman, soley, is responsible for all external costs? Doesn't sound too fair to me.
The fact is, a woman might be raising a child solo for all sorts of reasons, including that the father abandoned her and the child at any point after conception. There are some things out of one's control, including at times, being a single parent. These judgements seem uncharacteristically harsh for this internet community.
Seems to be the new normal. I dunno why. An influx of younger wealthier people without families? Or, who...haven't really seen a lot of the world/ US/ etc? Not a lot of empathy, and sometimes you have to gain empathy by actually meeting and interacting with different people.
I don’t agree that heathy able bodied people are somehow entitled to a certain standard of living. Sure if you are disabled, elderly or a child society should step in, but if you just don’t want to work or don’t want two jobs? Tough for you.
Can you be more specific? Above you listed a certain standard of living for a family. If you are willing to work, shouldn't there be a minimum standard of living?
Also I'm unclear on the bolded. Do you mean that the expectation for anyone is that if you can't pay bills on one job, you must be willing to work 2 full time jobs (for a single person?)
Seems...strange and pointless. Why did people fight for a 40-hour workweek again?
Why does it have to be Irvine? Looks like Santa Ana has plenty of options.
I don’t know LA, but you’ve got a car. Go find a place.
I understand there are going to be constraints. But this employee is living a life that has to be financed. Even with 30k a year in net cash every year, as an entry level unskilled worker. Thats ludicrous.
Ah ha ha, you don't know LA. That is funny! I avoid it like the plague, but let's just say we recently drove THROUGH it on spring break and traffic turned a 4 hour drive into an 8 hour drive. So...just stop right now when talking about traffic in LA.
So, the employee works at a bank? My mother was a teller, did not have a college education (though many do), and it is most definitely NOT an unskilled position.
-
Maybe this is a pretentious suggestion and may be covered by the article, but has she considered not living in one of the highest cost of living areas in the world? Despite the usual objections, it's not expensive to move, nor would it be difficult to find a "low paying" job elsewhere.
-
I've always found these discussions extremely interesting. I get the idea of a "living wage" it makes conceptual sense to me, I guess there are differing definitions of what one means by living wage. I also think the circumstances one is in are an interesting caveat. Obviously it seems harsh to say that a single mother of one "put herself in that situation" as clearly it takes two to make a baby,
So, how would one feel if Republicans get their way and pass legislation making abortion illegal if say you can hear a heartbeat? It means a woman even if she or her partner used protection and it failed, would be forced to carry the pregnancy. And I know from personal situations even when the woman intends to give up the child for adoption, cannot. But it sounds like even though her ability to terminate the pregnancy is prevented by government, the government, and the posters feel the woman, soley, is responsible for all external costs? Doesn't sound too fair to me.
The fact is, a woman might be raising a child solo for all sorts of reasons, including that the father abandoned her and the child at any point after conception. There are some things out of one's control, including at times, being a single parent. These judgements seem uncharacteristically harsh for this internet community.
Seems to be the new normal. I dunno why. An influx of younger wealthier people without families? Or, who...haven't really seen a lot of the world/ US/ etc? Not a lot of empathy, and sometimes you have to gain empathy by actually meeting and interacting with different people.
I don’t agree that heathy able bodied people are somehow entitled to a certain standard of living. Sure if you are disabled, elderly or a child society should step in, but if you just don’t want to work or don’t want two jobs? Tough for you.
Can you be more specific? Above you listed a certain standard of living for a family. If you are willing to work, shouldn't there be a minimum standard of living?
Also I'm unclear on the bolded. Do you mean that the expectation for anyone is that if you can't pay bills on one job, you must be willing to work 2 full time jobs (for a single person?)
Seems...strange and pointless. Why did people fight for a 40-hour workweek again?
Why does it have to be Irvine? Looks like Santa Ana has plenty of options.
I don’t know LA, but you’ve got a car. Go find a place.
I understand there are going to be constraints. But this employee is living a life that has to be financed. Even with 30k a year in net cash every year, as an entry level unskilled worker. Thats ludicrous.
Ah ha ha, you don't know LA. That is funny! I avoid it like the plague, but let's just say we recently drove THROUGH it on spring break and traffic turned a 4 hour drive into an 8 hour drive. So...just stop right now when talking about traffic in LA.
So, the employee works at a bank? My mother was a teller, did not have a college education (though many do), and it is most definitely NOT an unskilled position.
It was quoted in the video that this position is an unskilled, high school graduate position.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Maybe this is a pretentious suggestion and may be covered by the article, but has she considered not living in one of the highest cost of living areas in the world? Despite the usual objections, it's not expensive to move, nor would it be difficult to find a "low paying" job elsewhere.
Okay, then where do the we find the labor to fill low paying jobs in high COL areas?
-
Maybe this is a pretentious suggestion and may be covered by the article, but has she considered not living in one of the highest cost of living areas in the world? Despite the usual objections, it's not expensive to move, nor would it be difficult to find a "low paying" job elsewhere.
Okay, then where do the we find the labor to fill low paying jobs in high COL areas?
I don’t think it was suggested that everyone has to move. This employee chooses to live alone in their own apartment, spend too much on an oversized vehicle(for her), eat fabulous food, and still run a deficit. For someone with those needs, maybe they need to find another location, figure out how to make more money, or just run up CC debt. That’s the employees choice.
I lived with roommates until I was married. There would be plenty of eager, unattached, HS educated people who could easily make this work. Plus, at close to 17/hour, plenty of attached, partnered, married, or other people that would be sharing housing that could take this job.
Remember, this job pays more than 5k net cash than MMM budget for his family.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Maybe this is a pretentious suggestion and may be covered by the article, but has she considered not living in one of the highest cost of living areas in the world? Despite the usual objections, it's not expensive to move, nor would it be difficult to find a "low paying" job elsewhere.
Okay, then where do the we find the labor to fill low paying jobs in high COL areas?
If there's no one else to fill the position at $16.50 1) the hourly rate would go up, 2) more automation would be introduced, or 3) if the position doesn't provide enough value to JP Morgan to raise the rates (unlikely) it may just be eliminated.
My guess as to what would actually happen though is that someone with lower expenses would take the job and it would pay enough to support them.
-
I don’t think it was suggested that everyone has to move. This employee chooses to live alone in their own apartment, spend too much on an oversized vehicle(for her), eat fabulous food, and still run a deficit. For someone with those needs, maybe they need to find another location, figure out how to make more money, or just run up CC debt. That’s the employees choice.
I lived with roommates until I was married. There would be plenty of eager, unattached, HS educated people who could easily make this work. Plus, at close to 17/hour, plenty of attached, partnered, married, or other people that would be sharing housing that could take this job.
On a macroeconomic scale, are we just saying that huge portions of the country, including our largest job centers like Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, New York, and Austin are off limits to median income single mothers?
Congresswoman Porter was not actually asking Dimon to solve one single mother's financial woes. She was illustrating a market failure. A market that demands low skill workers, but does not pay them high enough wages, is a market failure. There are ways to address this failure that don't include the mass exodus of single mothers from urban job centers.
Remember, this job pays more than 5k net cash than MMM budget for his family.
MMM is incredibly wealthy. Wealthy people have options available to them that poor people do not. And his published low spending does not truly capture the cost of his lifestyle. It's meant as an illustration of how people of means can hack the system, live on less, and build wealth. It's not guideline for single mothers.
-
It was quoted in the video that this position is an unskilled, high school graduate position.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I thought it was interesting that he said that. With degree inflation everything seems to require degrees now. My boss won't even hire admin assistants that don't have a bachelor's degree.
I just looked up bank teller positions in my town (in Ohio) and both said High School Diploma plus at least one year in a customer service position, or a bachelor's degree. Both adds said Bachelor's degree preferred. So not quite entry level.
Here is some wording from a Huntington Bank ad:
Basic Qualifications
• HS Diploma or GED
• 1 year+ experience working with customers. Can include military service with administration, contracting, civil affairs, or similar experience
Or
• Bachelor's degree
Preferred Qualifications
• A Bachelor's Degree in a business related field is preferred, but not required
-
It was quoted in the video that this position is an unskilled, high school graduate position.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I thought it was interesting that he said that. With degree inflation everything seems to require degrees now. My boss won't even hire admin assistants that don't have a bachelor's degree.
I just looked up bank teller positions in my town (in Ohio) and both said High School Diploma plus at least one year in a customer service position, or a bachelor's degree. Both adds said Bachelor's degree preferred. So not quite entry level.
Here is some wording from a Huntington Bank ad:
Basic Qualifications
• HS Diploma or GED
• 1 year+ experience working with customers. Can include military service with administration, contracting, civil affairs, or similar experience
Or
• Bachelor's degree
Preferred Qualifications
• A Bachelor's Degree in a business related field is preferred, but not required
There is absolutely zero reason for someone to require a degree for a bank teller. I have done that before and it is not a complex job requiring any significant education. I would say working as a cashier in a supermarket (I've done that too) is more demanding.
A stated requirement of "one year of customer service experience" is extremely entry level. Did you work in a supermarket when you were in high school? Done.
-
There is absolutely zero reason for someone to have a degree to be a bank teller. I have done that before and it is not a complex job requiring any significant education. I would say working as a cashier in a supermarket (I've done that too) is more demanding.
Sure, but the job market is competitive. If you have smarter applicants available, why not hire them?
-
I've always found these discussions extremely interesting. I get the idea of a "living wage" it makes conceptual sense to me, I guess there are differing definitions of what one means by living wage. I also think the circumstances one is in are an interesting caveat. Obviously it seems harsh to say that a single mother of one "put herself in that situation" as clearly it takes two to make a baby,
So, how would one feel if Republicans get their way and pass legislation making abortion illegal if say you can hear a heartbeat? It means a woman even if she or her partner used protection and it failed, would be forced to carry the pregnancy. And I know from personal situations even when the woman intends to give up the child for adoption, cannot. But it sounds like even though her ability to terminate the pregnancy is prevented by government, the government, and the posters feel the woman, soley, is responsible for all external costs? Doesn't sound too fair to me.
The fact is, a woman might be raising a child solo for all sorts of reasons, including that the father abandoned her and the child at any point after conception. There are some things out of one's control, including at times, being a single parent. These judgements seem uncharacteristically harsh for this internet community.
Seems to be the new normal. I dunno why. An influx of younger wealthier people without families? Or, who...haven't really seen a lot of the world/ US/ etc? Not a lot of empathy, and sometimes you have to gain empathy by actually meeting and interacting with different people.
It is precisely because most people here don't come from money and didn't win the lottery or obtain our money through luck. When we were poor or our parents were poor or our grandparents were poor, who gave us handouts? I have a lot of empathy for people stuck in bad situations out of their control, like abused women or children, but not a lot for people who are where they are because the good decisions were hard.
I also don't see anything wrong with a six year old sharing a room with her mother. Where I come from it's pretty normal for an entire family to live in one room. In fact, I was in this exact situation when I was six, I slept in a room with my parents in a shared rental in a crappy old house. I got my own room when I was eight, when we moved into a two bedroom suite in the basement of a slightly nicer house.
-
There is absolutely zero reason for someone to have a degree to be a bank teller. I have done that before and it is not a complex job requiring any significant education. I would say working as a cashier in a supermarket (I've done that too) is more demanding.
Sure, but the job market is competitive. If you have smarter applicants available, why not hire them?
A 2.4% unemployment rate would disagree with that..
-
It is precisely because most people here don't come from money and didn't win the lottery or obtain our money through luck. When we were poor or our parents were poor or our grandparents were poor, who gave us handouts? I have a lot of empathy for people stuck in bad situations out of their control, like abused women or children, but not a lot for people who are where they are because the good decisions were hard.
This may be a little beyond the scope of discussion, but a whole lot of people who weren't actually poor "feel" like they were poor. This goes double for the bootstrappy personal finance crowd.
Just the other week we had someone who was the child of dual income land owners talking about growing up poor. That's just silly.
Of course, everyone is a unique situation and we all have reasons why we think our upbringing was super difficult, but as a blanket response to the people you describe, I'd tell them,
1.) You're not that poor
2.) Your parents probably got a lot of handouts
-
A 2.4% unemployment rate would disagree with that..
For Irvine California in April of 2019, sure absolutely. But millennials are poised to become the largest generation in the United States soon, and a lot of us came of age during 10% U3 unemployment and evaporating low skill-well paying labor. Some of us went to college for a shot at the higher paying industries. Some of us got into those industries. Others became overqualified bank tellers.
-
A 2.4% unemployment rate would disagree with that..
For Irvine California in April of 2019, sure absolutely. But millennials are poised to become the largest generation in the United States soon, and a lot of us came of age during 10% U3 unemployment and evaporating low skill-well paying labor. Some of us went to college for a shot at the higher paying industries. Some of us got into those industries. Others became overqualified bank tellers.
If your argument is "the job market may be competitive in the future" instead of "the job market is competitive", then sure. :P
I also dispute that someone having a college degree makes them smarter than someone who doesn't, but that's a different conversation.
-
It was quoted in the video that this position is an unskilled, high school graduate position.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I thought it was interesting that he said that. With degree inflation everything seems to require degrees now. My boss won't even hire admin assistants that don't have a bachelor's degree.
I just looked up bank teller positions in my town (in Ohio) and both said High School Diploma plus at least one year in a customer service position, or a bachelor's degree. Both adds said Bachelor's degree preferred. So not quite entry level.
Here is some wording from a Huntington Bank ad:
Basic Qualifications
• HS Diploma or GED
• 1 year+ experience working with customers. Can include military service with administration, contracting, civil affairs, or similar experience
Or
• Bachelor's degree
Preferred Qualifications
• A Bachelor's Degree in a business related field is preferred, but not required
There is absolutely zero reason for someone to require a degree for a bank teller. I have done that before and it is not a complex job requiring any significant education. I would say working as a cashier in a supermarket (I've done that too) is more demanding.
Doesn't matter if there's zero reason, a lot of jobs will ask for a degree anyway, ostensibly as proof of "intelligence" or "stick-to-itness." For example, none of the administrative jobs I've had in the past ten years involved skills I didn't already have in high school, yet every last one required a bachelor's degree (one that I had to go into debt to obtain).
-
It was quoted in the video that this position is an unskilled, high school graduate position.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I thought it was interesting that he said that. With degree inflation everything seems to require degrees now. My boss won't even hire admin assistants that don't have a bachelor's degree.
I just looked up bank teller positions in my town (in Ohio) and both said High School Diploma plus at least one year in a customer service position, or a bachelor's degree. Both adds said Bachelor's degree preferred. So not quite entry level.
Here is some wording from a Huntington Bank ad:
Basic Qualifications
• HS Diploma or GED
• 1 year+ experience working with customers. Can include military service with administration, contracting, civil affairs, or similar experience
Or
• Bachelor's degree
Preferred Qualifications
• A Bachelor's Degree in a business related field is preferred, but not required
There is absolutely zero reason for someone to require a degree for a bank teller. I have done that before and it is not a complex job requiring any significant education. I would say working as a cashier in a supermarket (I've done that too) is more demanding.
Doesn't matter if there's zero reason, a lot of jobs will ask for a degree anyway, ostensibly as proof of "intelligence" or "stick-to-itness." For example, none of the administrative jobs I've had in the past ten years involved skills I didn't already have in high school, yet every last one required a bachelor's degree (one that I had to go into debt to obtain).
I am aware of this, but in no way does that exclude said job from being entry level despite asking for a degree.
-
** on my point about there being a minimum wage for lowest level of Military service. Looked up the 2019 pay tables. An E-1 enlisted , low skill soldier with less than 2 yrs in the job, makes $1680 / month - that is 231 hrs of labor @ $7.25/hr.
If they get BAH [ the housing allowance to live in town, beacuse of lack of base housing or married/ w dependents] -in my area - than BAH adds $1356 for themselves or $1701 w/ dependents. Or if they are on-base they get a roof , and running water , and heat , + a bunk, and TV and often some sort of "entertainment bldg" with video games + a library etc.
+ Small work clothing allowance annually. Food provided 3 meals a day on base, or extra food allowance in the paycheck, which i didn't find the rate tables -but it used to be several hundred $$ a month. Medical benefit which i wont attempt to quantify in annual average costs.
So the gov't supports the E-1 to the tune of 1680 base pay + 1356 [1701] housing or its equivalent+ 200 base food+ 300 medical = $3536/mo or $42,400 / yr minimum, and more if the soldier is married/ kids . Working the math back @ $7.25 / hr the soldier would need to work ~490 hrs [ probably more] a month to support this lifestyle were they a minimum wage civilian getting paid by a business.
From this math it makes it seem, to me , that the gov't is saying an adult, with minimal skills, on their own, needs nearly $40k annually to be enticed to have a "mimimum" standard of living and work for them. And/or the avg cost for unskilled labor living a semi bare-bones lifestyle in my area is $40K.
-
Here's the other thing, when you're poor you have to hack stuff, not take the easiest solution. Four hundred something a month for after school care is about standard, which means it's organized center based care. That kind of thing was a huge luxury when I was young. My mom ran her own business so we never needed after school care, but I had a friend who came home with me every day because her parents both worked. Most of our friends who needed childcare did not go the organized route, because they are expensive.
I also never saw the inside of a restaurant until I was in my teens. A nice meal out was McDonald's. When my dad made a little more money we switched to A&W.
And what about reproduction? My mom didn't have another baby until they had enough to purchase their first home, even though that means there is a ten year age gap between my brother and me. And my brother slept in a shopping cart instead of a crib when he was a baby, I am not kidding.
When you are poor you have to live like you're poor to stay within your means, then do whatever you can to increase your income so you don't stay poor forever. That's basically what everyone on this forum does. If you choose to partake of middle class things while you are still poor, then say you don't have enough money, I'm sorry but I just don't have a lot of empathy for that.
-
It was quoted in the video that this position is an unskilled, high school graduate position.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I thought it was interesting that he said that. With degree inflation everything seems to require degrees now. My boss won't even hire admin assistants that don't have a bachelor's degree.
I just looked up bank teller positions in my town (in Ohio) and both said High School Diploma plus at least one year in a customer service position, or a bachelor's degree. Both adds said Bachelor's degree preferred. So not quite entry level.
Here is some wording from a Huntington Bank ad:
Basic Qualifications
• HS Diploma or GED
• 1 year+ experience working with customers. Can include military service with administration, contracting, civil affairs, or similar experience
Or
• Bachelor's degree
Preferred Qualifications
• A Bachelor's Degree in a business related field is preferred, but not required
There is absolutely zero reason for someone to require a degree for a bank teller. I have done that before and it is not a complex job requiring any significant education. I would say working as a cashier in a supermarket (I've done that too) is more demanding.
Doesn't matter if there's zero reason, a lot of jobs will ask for a degree anyway, ostensibly as proof of "intelligence" or "stick-to-itness." For example, none of the administrative jobs I've had in the past ten years involved skills I didn't already have in high school, yet every last one required a bachelor's degree (one that I had to go into debt to obtain).
I am aware of this, but in no way does that exclude said job from being entry level despite asking for a degree.
Well yeah, anything can be "entry level" if it's the lowest starting position at a company, regardless of what credentials are being asked for.
-
Here's the other thing, when you're poor you have to hack stuff, not take the easiest solution. Four hundred something a month for after school care is about standard, which means it's organized center based care. That kind of thing was a huge luxury when I was young. My mom ran her own business so we never needed after school care, but I had a friend who came home with me every day because her parents both worked. Most of our friends who needed childcare did not go the organized route, because they are expensive.
I also never saw the inside of a restaurant until I was in my teens. A nice meal out was McDonald's. When my dad made a little more money we switched to A&W.
And what about reproduction? My mom didn't have another baby until they had enough to purchase their first home, even though that means there is a ten year age gap between my brother and me. And my brother slept in a shopping cart instead of a crib when he was a baby, I am not kidding.
When you are poor you have to live like you're poor to stay within your means, then do whatever you can to increase your income so you don't stay poor forever. That's basically what everyone on this forum does. If you choose to partake of middle class things while you are still poor, then say you don't have enough money, I'm sorry but I just don't have a lot of empathy for that.
Not to mention just living in CA is a luxury. I cannot afford to live in CA or NYC, so I don't. I don't live in IL for the weather! Its because I can earn the most relative to my COL.
-
Not to mention just living in CA is a luxury. I cannot afford to live in CA or NYC, so I don't. I don't live in IL for the weather! Its because I can earn the most relative to my COL.
I am, at times, sympathetic to this argument. But Californians demand low skill labor so...
Here's the other thing, when you're poor you have to hack stuff, not take the easiest solution. Four hundred something a month for after school care is about standard, which means it's organized center based care. That kind of thing was a huge luxury when I was young. My mom ran her own business so we never needed after school care, but I had a friend who came home with me every day because her parents both worked. Most of our friends who needed childcare did not go the organized route, because they are expensive.
I also never saw the inside of a restaurant until I was in my teens. A nice meal out was McDonald's. When my dad made a little more money we switched to A&W.
And what about reproduction? My mom didn't have another baby until they had enough to purchase their first home, even though that means there is a ten year age gap between my brother and me. And my brother slept in a shopping cart instead of a crib when he was a baby, I am not kidding.
When you are poor you have to live like you're poor to stay within your means, then do whatever you can to increase your income so you don't stay poor forever. That's basically what everyone on this forum does. If you choose to partake of middle class things while you are still poor, then say you don't have enough money, I'm sorry but I just don't have a lot of empathy for that.
Do you ever muse on the fundamental brokenness of a world in which your brother had to sleep in a shopping cart?
-
It is precisely because most people here don't come from money and didn't win the lottery or obtain our money through luck. When we were poor or our parents were poor or our grandparents were poor, who gave us handouts? I have a lot of empathy for people stuck in bad situations out of their control, like abused women or children, but not a lot for people who are where they are because the good decisions were hard.
This may be a little beyond the scope of discussion, but a whole lot of people who weren't actually poor "feel" like they were poor. This goes double for the bootstrappy personal finance crowd.
Just the other week we had someone who was the child of dual income land owners talking about growing up poor. That's just silly.
Of course, everyone is a unique situation and we all have reasons why we think our upbringing was super difficult, but as a blanket response to the people you describe, I'd tell them,
1.) You're not that poor
2.) Your parents probably got a lot of handouts
Obviously we're not talking about extreme poverty, because the situation in the original post is not extreme poverty.
And my point is actually that I don't think I had a difficult upbringing. A six year old doesn't care about sharing a room with her parents. Or what kind of car they drive. Or whether they eat out. The congresswoman was talking about a shared room like it's child abuse. These things that low income people have to do to survive are not terrible.
-
Obviously we're not talking about extreme poverty, because the situation in the original post is not extreme poverty.
And my point is actually that I don't think I had a difficult upbringing. A six year old doesn't care about sharing a room with her parents. Or what kind of car they drive. Or whether they eat out. The congresswoman was talking about a shared room like it's child abuse. These things that low income people have to do to survive are not terrible.
JPM posting 27% margins instead of 30% margins isn't terrible either.
-
** on my point about there being a minimum wage for lowest level of Military service. Looked up the 2019 pay tables. An E-1 enlisted , low skill soldier with less than 2 yrs in the job, makes $1680 / month - that is 231 hrs of labor @ $7.25/hr.
It's hard to make a comparison though to civilian life- apples and oranges and all that. A lot of times I didn't feel like I got paid enough. I get this argument though. And I can attest that that can be true. But you're salaried in the military. If something happens you might have to put in more hours of work. If you're on deployment, you might be working a bit more than normal. I can't even imagine getting paid7.25/hr while in a combat situation- even with combat pay and or hazardous duty pay.
Most of my time in every six days was a duty day for 24 hours. When we were in dry dock we would rotate, but would have three day duty weekends- 72 hours, baby. If my equipment broke, there wasn't time off until it was fixed. If you're back in the middle of a deployment and say 9/11 goes down instead of liberty you might find your ass up on the port side with an M60 slung on your shoulder instead. When overseas, there were months where I didn't have a day off.
I make the argument that military pay used to be a lot worse. The GI Bill was the big carrot for me and frankly, it was awesome.
-
Not to mention just living in CA is a luxury. I cannot afford to live in CA or NYC, so I don't. I don't live in IL for the weather! Its because I can earn the most relative to my COL.
I am, at times, sympathetic to this argument. But Californians demand low skill labor so...
Here's the other thing, when you're poor you have to hack stuff, not take the easiest solution. Four hundred something a month for after school care is about standard, which means it's organized center based care. That kind of thing was a huge luxury when I was young. My mom ran her own business so we never needed after school care, but I had a friend who came home with me every day because her parents both worked. Most of our friends who needed childcare did not go the organized route, because they are expensive.
I also never saw the inside of a restaurant until I was in my teens. A nice meal out was McDonald's. When my dad made a little more money we switched to A&W.
And what about reproduction? My mom didn't have another baby until they had enough to purchase their first home, even though that means there is a ten year age gap between my brother and me. And my brother slept in a shopping cart instead of a crib when he was a baby, I am not kidding.
When you are poor you have to live like you're poor to stay within your means, then do whatever you can to increase your income so you don't stay poor forever. That's basically what everyone on this forum does. If you choose to partake of middle class things while you are still poor, then say you don't have enough money, I'm sorry but I just don't have a lot of empathy for that.
Do you ever muse on the fundamental brokenness of a world in which your brother had to sleep in a shopping cart?
I do! Obv.
Living in CA is a luxury, until it's not. Like if you grew up here, or don't have the money to move, or rely on family to help out, or are required by divorce or child custody agreements.
In fact, I live in a very expensive place in So. Cal. I worked with a single mother for awhile. She remarried. Her husband got a job in the desert.
She was not allowed to move from our coastal area to the desert because of child custody agreements. She was required to stay here (within a 2 hours drive of the father of the child), pay rent here, continue to work here, while her (new) husband lived and worked elsewhere.
In fact, after a court appearance once she mentioned that probably the *only* way she'd be allowed, by the court, to move to the cheaper area would be if she got laid off (she mentioned it casually, but did in fact get RIF'd a couple of weeks later, along with 25 % of the company.) She now is allowed to live with her husband!
I grew up pretty poor, in a large family. It's fascinating to see how the 9 of use grew up, and our own opinions of hard work and such.
First, there's a lot of "bootstraps!" (which is ridiculous if you look up what the term actually means). But the "bootstraps" is mostly from the sibs without children.
Also, there's a lot of survivor bias, and lack of recognition of privilege. Yes, we were poor. Yes we worked very hard as did our parents. However, our dad owned a home, we were able to have a garden, we had a MASSIVE extended family to rely on, we have a great deal of natural intelligence and lived in a safe area.
It's very hard for some people to get past the "well I did it, so anyone can" mentality.
Not that people shouldn't try.
But it's a tricky business and a sliding scale, and I think it's ridiculous that so many people cannot see that, or do not want to see that.
-
Not to mention just living in CA is a luxury. I cannot afford to live in CA or NYC, so I don't. I don't live in IL for the weather! Its because I can earn the most relative to my COL.
Not to be rude, but I'm pretty sure most people without means in CA or other relative HCOL areas don't think everyday "I'll just take all of my average-American non-existent savings, pick ourselves up and move to a lower cost of living area where I don't have a job, nowhere to stay, don't know anybody, have no friends or family and start over.
I absolutely agree that most Americans could live better within their means and get some financial literacy, but you have to understand that most people are not the type of people on these forums, for good and for bad. Also consider that there are a lot of people working at the bottom who are really not able to work anything else. Those people should still be payed a living wage.
-
Not to mention just living in CA is a luxury. I cannot afford to live in CA or NYC, so I don't. I don't live in IL for the weather! Its because I can earn the most relative to my COL.
I am, at times, sympathetic to this argument. But Californians demand low skill labor so...
Here's the other thing, when you're poor you have to hack stuff, not take the easiest solution. Four hundred something a month for after school care is about standard, which means it's organized center based care. That kind of thing was a huge luxury when I was young. My mom ran her own business so we never needed after school care, but I had a friend who came home with me every day because her parents both worked. Most of our friends who needed childcare did not go the organized route, because they are expensive.
I also never saw the inside of a restaurant until I was in my teens. A nice meal out was McDonald's. When my dad made a little more money we switched to A&W.
And what about reproduction? My mom didn't have another baby until they had enough to purchase their first home, even though that means there is a ten year age gap between my brother and me. And my brother slept in a shopping cart instead of a crib when he was a baby, I am not kidding.
When you are poor you have to live like you're poor to stay within your means, then do whatever you can to increase your income so you don't stay poor forever. That's basically what everyone on this forum does. If you choose to partake of middle class things while you are still poor, then say you don't have enough money, I'm sorry but I just don't have a lot of empathy for that.
Do you ever muse on the fundamental brokenness of a world in which your brother had to sleep in a shopping cart?
No, because I don't think sleeping in a crib is a right. Many things that we consider necessities are not, that's one of the main tenets of MMM.
-
It's very hard for some people to get past the "well I did it, so anyone can" mentality.
Not that people shouldn't try.
But it's a tricky business and a sliding scale, and I think it's ridiculous that so many people cannot see that, or do not want to see that.
+1
-
No, because I don't think sleeping in a crib is a right. Many things that we consider necessities are not, that's one of the main tenets of MMM.
I don't know MMM, but I'd be extremely surprised if he would sanction, "Save money on cribs, put your baby in a shopping cart" as a good faith interpretation of his teachings.
I would love for him to weigh in on this.
-
Obviously we're not talking about extreme poverty, because the situation in the original post is not extreme poverty.
And my point is actually that I don't think I had a difficult upbringing. A six year old doesn't care about sharing a room with her parents. Or what kind of car they drive. Or whether they eat out. The congresswoman was talking about a shared room like it's child abuse. These things that low income people have to do to survive are not terrible.
JPM posting 27% margins instead of 30% margins isn't terrible either.
If the shareholders got together and voted to cap the CEO's salary, great. The repercussions of that decision will then be subject to the forces of the free economy, to be changed or not.
If the government passes a law to cap the salaries of CEO's, not so great.
-
No, because I don't think sleeping in a crib is a right. Many things that we consider necessities are not, that's one of the main tenets of MMM.
I don't know MMM, but I'd be extremely surprised if he would sanction, "Save money on cribs, put your baby in a shopping cart" as a good faith interpretation of his teachings.
I would love for him to weigh in on this.
Doesn't have to be a shopping cart, but if you are barely scraping by, there are many other alternatives to buying a crib for your baby. Nobody in my extended family except for the most recent generation slept in a crib.
-
No, because I don't think sleeping in a crib is a right. Many things that we consider necessities are not, that's one of the main tenets of MMM.
I don't know MMM, but I'd be extremely surprised if he would sanction, "Save money on cribs, put your baby in a shopping cart" as a good faith interpretation of his teachings.
I would love for him to weigh in on this.
Doesn't have to be a shopping cart, but if you are barely scraping by, there are many other alternatives to buying a crib for your baby. Nobody in my extended family except for the most recent generation slept in a crib.
https://inlandempire.craigslist.org/zip/d/murrieta-crib/6860453760.html
-
ETA: I don't think the Department of Agriculture defines a low cost food budget as "Ramen Noodles". I bit of a stretch there...
https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/files/usda_food_plans_cost_of_food/FoodPlansRecipeBook.pdf (https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/files/usda_food_plans_cost_of_food/FoodPlansRecipeBook.pdf)
Pages 14-15. No ramen. I think it's of some public interest, because apparently the US govt uses the Thrifty Food Plan along with CPI data to determine food stamps allocation.
While googling around for that I came across this guy's account (https://www.thrillist.com/eat/nation/how-save-money-groceries-usda-food-plans) of trying to live like that. Of interest for people on this forum, he writes,
"Whether I spent $78.86 at my local grocery store or $42.60, I felt the same. How? When I compared my grocery bill from a normal week with one from my experiment, I saw many more impulse buys: vegan ice cream, kale chips, exotic fruits. Nothing that I needed to survive… probably nothing I needed at all. About half the "extra" food went to waste. "
He goes on to talk about how this won't help people who need to work multiple jobs to pay for things, and who thus won't have time to cook, etc - so he's not an idiot.
I think whether we're looking at frugality or health, the advice given is often confusing, especially since it can come from different government departments and non-profit groups, for example this advice (https://www.choosemyplate.gov/budget-sample-two-week-menus) comes from the ChooseMyPlate website. This advice and that advice may both be good, but they're different, and that's confusing. When confused, we don't change what we're doing.
-
I don’t think it was suggested that everyone has to move. This employee chooses to live alone in their own apartment, spend too much on an oversized vehicle(for her), eat fabulous food, and still run a deficit. For someone with those needs, maybe they need to find another location, figure out how to make more money, or just run up CC debt. That’s the employees choice.
I lived with roommates until I was married. There would be plenty of eager, unattached, HS educated people who could easily make this work. Plus, at close to 17/hour, plenty of attached, partnered, married, or other people that would be sharing housing that could take this job.
On a macroeconomic scale, are we just saying that huge portions of the country, including our largest job centers like Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, New York, and Austin are off limits to median income single mothers?
Congresswoman Porter was not actually asking Dimon to solve one single mother's financial woes. She was illustrating a market failure. A market that demands low skill workers, but does not pay them high enough wages, is a market failure. There are ways to address this failure that don't include the mass exodus of single mothers from urban job centers.
Remember, this job pays more than 5k net cash than MMM budget for his family.
MMM is incredibly wealthy. Wealthy people have options available to them that poor people do not. And his published low spending does not truly capture the cost of his lifestyle. It's meant as an illustration of how people of means can hack the system, live on less, and build wealth. It's not guideline for single mothers.
She's a median single income mother who spends like a family of four. She needs to do better. It's not "hacking the system" - it's called being financially responsible and not having a $40 cell phone plan when a $16 plan will do, and not driving a really expensive car when there are alternatives.
-
https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/11-28-11povf2.png (https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/11-28-11povf2.png)
Income and wealth inequality has widened in the United State by massive margins since the 1970s. Jamie Dimon heads a bank that brings in $100bn in revenue a year. He himself makes $28 million in salary, and much more in options compensation. JP Morgan spends millions a year on lobbying, and they will be the beneficiaries of an indefinite cut in the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%.
This doesn't make them bad or evil, but with her short time commanding Dimon's attention, the congresswoman asked him to consider what role he and his company play in exacerbating inequality. I think that is a tremendously good use of congressional time.
It breaks my heart to see how quickly we reduce this to a discussion about whether a poor single mother, real or hypothetical, could do with a used sedan instead of a used minivan, or whether the congresswoman's use of the the phrase "ramen diet" was appropriate or inappropriate.
What really breaks my heart though, is how we use all the frugality we've learned against the less fortunate. And above all, the appeals to MMM to do so. Pete Adney is a wealthy man. He grew up privileged, and made an extremely high income for all of his short working career. His annual spending numbers (to the extent that they actually capture the lifestyle he leads) are him playing make believe. He does not, and will never know what it is to be poor. I think he has the wisdom to realize that, and it would be tremendously helpful if he communicated that to his acolytes.
-
The reason a lot of us aren't particularly taken with the woman's plight is that we don't like non-frugal spending which then requires extra-market-based correction, i.e., welfare.
The lady spends about the same as I do yet I earn 4 times as much. Sooner or later I'll be asked to fork out more tax to pay for welfare for people like her, thus deferring my own, well-earned retirement. I'm not saying I don't want to fund welfare at all - but there's a line between truly needed welfare and gratuitous welfare. If a single mother can spend $35k USD a year, that's gratuitous. It's a huge figure, one that I have to really try in order to be able to spend.
I agree with you that some CEO salaries are obscene - but that's another matter.
-
The reason a lot of us aren't particularly taken with the woman's plight is that we don't like non-frugal spending which then requires extra-market-based correction, i.e., welfare.
The lady spends about the same as I do yet I earn 4 times as much. Sooner or later I'll be asked to fork out more tax to pay for welfare for people like her, thus deferring my own, well-earned retirement. I'm not saying I don't want to fund welfare at all - but there's a line between truly needed welfare and gratuitous welfare. If a single mother can spend $35k USD a year, that's gratuitous. It's a huge figure, one that I have to really try in order to be able to spend.
I agree with you that some CEO salaries are obscene - but that's another matter.
Such a salary would net you ~$29K after state, local, federal, and FICA taxes. $29K/year of spending for a mother and a child in Irivine California is in no way "non-frugal". Full stop.
The MIT Living Wage calculation for 1-adult 1-child in the area is north of $50K a year. I know we don't exactly like the living wage calculator around here, but even if you steeply discount the living wage, such a hypothetical family is barely making it, or not making it. The shortfall already comes from welfare. This is the point of asking a big bank C.E.O. to consider such a situation. To consider what role his bank plays in low salaries and income inequality, and what role the giant tax cut they just got plays in the underfunding of safety nets.
-
@mathlete - you keep saying things better than I can say them and before I post them so this is just a general thumbs up in your direction.
If we even talk about this from a worst case scenario, ie. this woman has done everything wrong that people are assuming she has: had a child out of wed lock young, no father, etc (and not just married/divorced ended up in crappy situation through no fault of her own). Then this hypothetical lady is still doing exactly what we encourage people in her situation to do, get her GED, enroll her child in decent quality childcare ($450 a month for after school care is at least base-level decent and not just dropping a kid off to watch TV somewhere), and work 40 hours a week in a job that will offer her opportunities to grow in the future.
She's doing what we say people should do and a portion of this thread is sh*tting on her. It is not cool. You can always find something someone has done wrong in the past (even us awesome mustachians) and you can encourage people and even offer suggestions. But to write someone's situation off because you assume they can find a magical unicorn of a housing situation ignores reality.
And just to be clear, I think 1,200 or less a month housing in a safe environment where she manages to be within 20 minutes of her daughter's childcare is the unicorn in this situation - rush hour in San Diego and Orange Counties is generally 30-40 minutes per 10 miles in my experience.
-
@mathlete - you keep saying things better than I can say them and before I post them so this is just a general thumbs up in your direction.
If we even talk about this from a worst case scenario, ie. this woman has done everything wrong that people are assuming she has: had a child out of wed lock young, no father, etc (and not just married/divorced ended up in crappy situation through no fault of her own). Then this hypothetical lady is still doing exactly what we encourage people in her situation to do, get her GED, enroll her child in decent quality childcare ($450 a month for after school care is at least base-level decent and not just dropping a kid off to watch TV somewhere), and work 40 hours a week in a job that will offer her opportunities to grow in the future.
She's doing what we say people should do and a portion of this thread is sh*tting on her. It is not cool. You can always find something someone has done wrong in the past (even us awesome mustachians) and you can encourage people and even offer suggestions. But to write someone's situation off because you assume they can find a magical unicorn of a housing situation ignores reality.
And just to be clear, I think 1,200 or less a month housing in a safe environment where she manages to be within 20 minutes of her daughter's childcare is the unicorn in this situation - rush hour in San Diego and Orange Counties is generally 30-40 minutes per 10 miles in my experience.
Yes, and such solutions like that are often "don't live in a HCOL area unless you have a HCOL salary."
Some situations are not reasonably workable without changing the equation. If I were to post and say "I want to live in Manhattan but an apartment takes half of my income, what do I do" I guarantee people here would say "don't live in Manhattan."
-
Yes, and such solutions like that are often "don't live in a HCOL area unless you have a HCOL salary."
Some situations are not reasonably workable without changing the equation. If I were to post and say "I want to live in Manhattan but an apartment takes half of my income, what do I do" I guarantee people here would say "don't live in Manhattan."
Manhattan is 23 square miles. The Greater Los Angeles Area is close to 5,000 square miles. There are fundamental and obvious problems to treating entire metro areas as if they're analogous to wealthy neighborhoods. Should we be expecting all the line cooks to commute daily from Nevada?
-
Yes, and such solutions like that are often "don't live in a HCOL area unless you have a HCOL salary."
Some situations are not reasonably workable without changing the equation. If I were to post and say "I want to live in Manhattan but an apartment takes half of my income, what do I do" I guarantee people here would say "don't live in Manhattan."
Manhattan is 23 square miles. The Greater Los Angeles Area is close to 5,000 square miles. There are fundamental and obvious problems to treating entire metro areas as if they're analogous to wealthy neighborhoods. Should we be expecting all the line cooks to commute daily from Nevada?
Close, yeah - the Los Angeles metropolitan area is 4,850 square miles. If that's your chosen metric for comparison, the New York metropolitan area is 13,318 square miles. There are options.
I am unclear as to what exactly your argument is - it seems to be that any full time job should be able to support a single mother with a child, child care, a non-shared living situation and a car in a HCOL area but that doesn't seem reasonable to me.
-
I am unclear as to what exactly your argument is - it seems to be that any full time job should be able to support a single mother with a child, child care, a non-shared living situation and a car in a HCOL area but that doesn't seem reasonable to me.
My points are as follows:
1.) Our entire economy, top to bottom, needs re-examining. A good place to start is by looking at what responsibility employers have to pay wages that are commensurate with the cost of living, OR, we need to re-examine the efficacy of granting huge tax cuts to $100bn revenue companies, which further stresses the safety net.
2.) I think it's pretty out there how aggressively some posters think this hypothetical woman should pursue racing to the bottom even further when the man sitting at the table runs a bank that made $32 billion in net income last year.
-
As others have said, even if we accept that employers should pay a "living wage", whose living standard do they peg at? A single mother living in a $400/week nice flat in a HCOL area? Damn, why not just go all out and make sure every company can pay for a family of four?
And I don't think that paying less than $400/week for rent or $40/month for a phone plan is a "race to the bottom". As I said, I (and I'm sure many others, who make multiples of what this woman does) don't even have those expenses.
Finally, a lot of us don't have any issues with a society and rewards certain forms of hard work and fails to reward other forms of lack of frugality/thrift. At the end of the day if society were more equal I'd have a harder time retiring. I (and many others I'm sure) make good money from bank shares. And if it comes to choosing between the financial interests of a profligate worker versus my own interests - me being, I think, an intelligent investor who hasn't made shit choices - then I know who I'm voting for every day of the week. Give me points for honesty, at least.
-
Maybe a middle of the road solution would be for JP Morgan to offer more opportunities for advancement. They could offer a benefit to help bank tellers get the education and training they would need to become loan officers or financial advisors. Basically a hand-up instead of a hand-out.
-
Maybe a middle of the road solution would be for JP Morgan to offer more opportunities for advancement. They could offer a benefit to help bank tellers get the education and training they would need to become loan officers or financial advisors. Basically a hand-up instead of a hand-out.
I agree with you, but this still wouldn't pacify some in this thread, who'll always gravitate towards the situation of those on the lowest rungs of the ability/work ethic ladder. After all, if one person advances, that means another misses out, and what to do about the poor second person?
-
As others have said, even if we accept that employers should pay a "living wage", whose living standard do they peg at? A single mother living in a $400/week nice flat in a HCOL area? Damn, why not just go all out and make sure every company can pay for a family of four?
And I don't think that paying less than $400/week for rent or $40/month for a phone plan is a "race to the bottom". As I said, I (and I'm sure many others, who make multiples of what this woman does) don't even have those expenses.
Market rents are what they are. We can discuss why if people want to, but right now, it's a fact of life in the Greater LA Area. $40 also seems perfectly reasonable for a cellphone plan. Maybe you guys have figured out how to pay less, but focusing on it as if it matters at all in this context is pretty myopic IMO.
I don't think JP Morgan necessarily has to pay this hypothetical woman her living wage just because she has a kid and maybe her coworker doesn't. But if we don't do that (I don't think we should), we should at least have a tax and a welfare structure that recognizes that.
Finally, a lot of us don't have any issues with a society and rewards certain forms of hard work and fails to reward other forms of lack of frugality/thrift.
I don't think this description of society fits reality. I say that as a fairly thrifty and hardworking person myself. Hard work and thriftiness are great and they help a lot. But capitalism rewards capital. It's not called laborism or thriftyism. I'd bet on the outcomes of the person with capital over the harder worker 11 times out of 10.
-
As others have said, even if we accept that employers should pay a "living wage", whose living standard do they peg at? A single mother living in a $400/week nice flat in a HCOL area? Damn, why not just go all out and make sure every company can pay for a family of four?
And I don't think that paying less than $400/week for rent or $40/month for a phone plan is a "race to the bottom". As I said, I (and I'm sure many others, who make multiples of what this woman does) don't even have those expenses.
Finally, a lot of us don't have any issues with a society and rewards certain forms of hard work and fails to reward other forms of lack of frugality/thrift. At the end of the day if society were more equal I'd have a harder time retiring. I (and many others I'm sure) make good money from bank shares. And if it comes to choosing between the financial interests of a profligate worker versus my own interests - me being, I think, an intelligent investor who hasn't made shit choices - then I know who I'm voting for every day of the week. Give me points for honesty, at least.
You frame this as a choice between "the financial interests of a profligate worker versus my own interests" when in reality that's not the choice that you have.
You can choose to:
- personally pay for the "profilgate worker" through taxation and social programs
or
- force companies to pay the full costs of the "profilgate workers" they hire
In both cases the "profilgate worker" is being paid for. In the case that you support, you are on the hook for the costs. Which seems like a weird thing to support - given that it's contrary to your own financial interests.
-
As others have said, even if we accept that employers should pay a "living wage", whose living standard do they peg at? A single mother living in a $400/week nice flat in a HCOL area? Damn, why not just go all out and make sure every company can pay for a family of four?
And I don't think that paying less than $400/week for rent or $40/month for a phone plan is a "race to the bottom". As I said, I (and I'm sure many others, who make multiples of what this woman does) don't even have those expenses.
Market rents are what they are. We can discuss why if people want to, but right now, it's a fact of life in the Greater LA Area. $40 also seems perfectly reasonable for a cellphone plan. Maybe you guys have figured out how to pay less, but focusing on it as if it matters at all in this context is pretty myopic IMO.
I don't think JP Morgan necessarily has to pay this hypothetical woman her living wage just because she has a kid and maybe her coworker doesn't. But if we don't do that (I don't think we should), we should at least have a tax and a welfare structure that recognizes that.
Finally, a lot of us don't have any issues with a society and rewards certain forms of hard work and fails to reward other forms of lack of frugality/thrift.
I don't think this description of society fits reality. I say that as a fairly thrifty and hardworking person myself. Hard work and thriftiness are great and they help a lot. But capitalism rewards capital. It's not called laborism or thriftyism. I'd bet on the outcomes of the person with capital over the harder worker 11 times out of 10.
$40 is ridiculous for a cell phone plan. Unless you want lots of data and the latest iPhone. There's nothing wrong with that, if you can afford it.
And of course you can say that I'm being myopic to look at a $25/month saving. Of course that by itself does nothing. The point is, where else can this lady cut costs? From groceries to living in slightly lesser accommodation. It all adds up.
And previously I've said I'm happy to have enough welfare so that this lady and her kid are never homeless or starving. Beyond that, I don't know what more you could want. There's only so many hand-outs we need to give.
And as for your dichotomy between capital and labour, in truth there's no dichotomy. For one thing, as you accrue income, it becomes capital. For another, there's no hard and fast distinction between a worker-slave and a master-boss. Any worker can go out and start his or her own business, like many of us have, and then become little capitalists. You write as if you need $100 million and a factory in order to start a business. Whereas you really just need a couple of thousand bucks and a desk.
-
As others have said, even if we accept that employers should pay a "living wage", whose living standard do they peg at? A single mother living in a $400/week nice flat in a HCOL area? Damn, why not just go all out and make sure every company can pay for a family of four?
And I don't think that paying less than $400/week for rent or $40/month for a phone plan is a "race to the bottom". As I said, I (and I'm sure many others, who make multiples of what this woman does) don't even have those expenses.
Finally, a lot of us don't have any issues with a society and rewards certain forms of hard work and fails to reward other forms of lack of frugality/thrift. At the end of the day if society were more equal I'd have a harder time retiring. I (and many others I'm sure) make good money from bank shares. And if it comes to choosing between the financial interests of a profligate worker versus my own interests - me being, I think, an intelligent investor who hasn't made shit choices - then I know who I'm voting for every day of the week. Give me points for honesty, at least.
You frame this as a choice between "the financial interests of a profligate worker versus my own interests" when in reality that's not the choice that you have.
You can choose to:
- personally pay for the "profilgate worker" through taxation and social programs
or
- force companies to pay the full costs of the "profilgate workers" they hire
In both cases the "profilgate worker" is being paid for. In the case that you support, you are on the hook for the costs. Which seems like a weird thing to support - given that it's contrary to your own financial interests.
I've dealt with the exact point in an earlier post. There's no free lunch in forcing companies to pay 'the full cost' (whatever that means). It generally means artificially inflated wages, which then flows through to the outputs, and to all the there workers currently on low wages, etc. So yes, if all companies increased their pay by $5/hr, we might save a bit on welfare, but we'd be paying more every time we go to the grocer, the supermarket, the car dealership, etc
-
Maybe this is a pretentious suggestion and may be covered by the article, but has she considered not living in one of the highest cost of living areas in the world? Despite the usual objections, it's not expensive to move, nor would it be difficult to find a "low paying" job elsewhere.
Okay, then where do the we find the labor to fill low paying jobs in high COL areas?
If there's no one else to fill the position at $16.50 1) the hourly rate would go up, 2) more automation would be introduced, or 3) if the position doesn't provide enough value to JP Morgan to raise the rates (unlikely) it may just be eliminated.
My guess as to what would actually happen though is that someone with lower expenses would take the job and it would pay enough to support them.
That's about as well as it could be put.
We should not be forcing companies to pay more than market price for wages, and we should not subsidize people who choose to live in a HCOL area.
-
$40 is ridiculous for a cell phone plan.
Hard disagree. I guess we're at an impasse on this one, which is fine.
And previously I've said I'm happy to have enough welfare so that this lady and her kid are never homeless or starving.
Fantastic! I'd be glad to turn this into a discussion about huge corporate tax cuts that benefit companies like JPM placing more of that welfare burden on financed debt.
And as for your dichotomy between capital and labour, in truth there's no dichotomy. For one thing, as you accrue income, it becomes capital. For another, there's no hard and fast distinction between a worker-slave and a master-boss. Any worker can go out and start his or her own business, like many of us have, and then become little capitalists. You write as if you need $100 million and a factory in order to start a business. Whereas you really just need a couple of thousand bucks and a desk.
(https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/styles/downsample150to92/public/atoms/files/11-28-11povf1.png?itok=aj15cjs5)
What happened in the late 1970s? Did median and and low income families become less thrifty and hardworking?
-
The reason a lot of us aren't particularly taken with the woman's plight is that we don't like non-frugal spending which then requires extra-market-based correction, i.e., welfare.
The lady spends about the same as I do yet I earn 4 times as much. Sooner or later I'll be asked to fork out more tax to pay for welfare for people like her, thus deferring my own, well-earned retirement. I'm not saying I don't want to fund welfare at all - but there's a line between truly needed welfare and gratuitous welfare. If a single mother can spend $35k USD a year, that's gratuitous. It's a huge figure, one that I have to really try in order to be able to spend.
I agree with you that some CEO salaries are obscene - but that's another matter.
Where, exactly does it state this full time worker is getting welfare benefits? Let's hope she's at least able to access EITC, that's a huge help for the working poor. I'm also not getting all the vitriol about a used minivan and how she should 'just move'. It's fun to beat up on those less fortunate, the last allowable bloodsport Shaming someone for having a child and wanting a good life for them just seems cruel.
And why is the CEO's $30M salary and over $1B NW off the table for discussion? Is anyone discussing his multiple homes scattered about, private jet flights around the globe. Sure, we get he's an Harvard educated white man in America who's had a lot of breaks and is well connected. His life is an exploding volcano of wastefulness very likely.
Large labor-heavy corporations could go a long way in treating workers better. Sure, keep the $16.50 salary. How about kicking in fully paid (not just partial) health insurance, a cell phone allowance, transport allowance for either personal vehicles or public transportation and some quarterly bonuses for merit or whatever.
It's fun to play poor and shame others isn't it? Easy to say 'I live on X per month and save XXX per month!
-
(https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/styles/downsample150to92/public/atoms/files/11-28-11povf1.png?itok=aj15cjs5)
What happened in the late 1970s? Did median and and low income families become less thrifty and hardworking?
Yes, actually. It may have started before then, but there's no doubt that America has become a culture of consumption, which has certainly benefited the producers far more than it has benefited the consumers. The FI movement already knows that much, and it's why we tend to reject consumerism.
My takeaway from that chart is that median households are just as well off now as they were then, or even slightly better off. However, that doesn't appear to be good enough, because other people have more. The growth in income of the super rich has not negatively affected the middle class, but it has certainly bred plenty of envy.
-
$40 is ridiculous for a cell phone plan.
Hard disagree. I guess we're at an impasse on this one, which is fine.
And previously I've said I'm happy to have enough welfare so that this lady and her kid are never homeless or starving.
Fantastic! I'd be glad to turn this into a discussion about huge corporate tax cuts that benefit companies like JPM placing more of that welfare burden on financed debt.
And as for your dichotomy between capital and labour, in truth there's no dichotomy. For one thing, as you accrue income, it becomes capital. For another, there's no hard and fast distinction between a worker-slave and a master-boss. Any worker can go out and start his or her own business, like many of us have, and then become little capitalists. You write as if you need $100 million and a factory in order to start a business. Whereas you really just need a couple of thousand bucks and a desk.
(https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/styles/downsample150to92/public/atoms/files/11-28-11povf1.png?itok=aj15cjs5)
What happened in the late 1970s? Did median and and low income families become less thrifty and hardworking?
I suspect what happened is a number of things
1 - Rise of dual-income families (due to increased female participation in paid work)
2 - Dual income families + assortative mating = naturally more inequality
3 - Globalisation, migration and free trade
In other words, family structure changed and the work force became more competitive overall. Thrift and hard work used to get you +3 stats boost if enabled and -3 stats boost if disabled, now they give +5/-5 stats boost.
-
Maybe this is a pretentious suggestion and may be covered by the article, but has she considered not living in one of the highest cost of living areas in the world? Despite the usual objections, it's not expensive to move, nor would it be difficult to find a "low paying" job elsewhere.
Okay, then where do the we find the labor to fill low paying jobs in high COL areas?
If there's no one else to fill the position at $16.50 1) the hourly rate would go up, 2) more automation would be introduced, or 3) if the position doesn't provide enough value to JP Morgan to raise the rates (unlikely) it may just be eliminated.
My guess as to what would actually happen though is that someone with lower expenses would take the job and it would pay enough to support them.
That's about as well as it could be put.
We should not be forcing companies to pay more than market price for wages, and we should not subsidize people who choose to live in a HCOL area.
Absolutely, couldnt agree more. As someone who is intimately familiar with the Irvine (and surrounding area) real estate markets, the subject in this story should not be paying Irvine rental prices, when her income more readily aligns with the MUCH LOWER rental prices in neighboring Santa Ana. Folks on this board may not realize that north Irvine is a mere 100 FEET away from the southern edge of Santa Ana. The difference is stark, and the real estate pricing reflects that. I make far more than the subject in this story, and I know I am unable to afford Irvine rental prices, so I chose not to live there. It's funny, there is so much "prestige" associated with living in Irvine, that folks will do almost anything to be able to say they live in Irvine.
With ridiculous housing costs in socal, a move to Santa Ana may be the better prescription for the subjects ails than trying to force JPM to pay above market value for her skills.
-
@mathlete - you keep saying things better than I can say them and before I post them so this is just a general thumbs up in your direction.
If we even talk about this from a worst case scenario, ie. this woman has done everything wrong that people are assuming she has: had a child out of wed lock young, no father, etc (and not just married/divorced ended up in crappy situation through no fault of her own). Then this hypothetical lady is still doing exactly what we encourage people in her situation to do, get her GED, enroll her child in decent quality childcare ($450 a month for after school care is at least base-level decent and not just dropping a kid off to watch TV somewhere), and work 40 hours a week in a job that will offer her opportunities to grow in the future.
She's doing what we say people should do and a portion of this thread is sh*tting on her. It is not cool. You can always find something someone has done wrong in the past (even us awesome mustachians) and you can encourage people and even offer suggestions. But to write someone's situation off because you assume they can find a magical unicorn of a housing situation ignores reality.
And just to be clear, I think 1,200 or less a month housing in a safe environment where she manages to be within 20 minutes of her daughter's childcare is the unicorn in this situation - rush hour in San Diego and Orange Counties is generally 30-40 minutes per 10 miles in my experience.
It's the new normal here.
-
@DadJokes , just curious. When you filed your taxes this year, did you itemize your mortgage interest? Take allowable deductions for your child/ren? Daycare? Are they or will they attend public schools?
If yes to any of the above, why are we subsidizing YOUR lifestyle?
-
Having a CEO (or anyone) explain how someone else should budget their salary is dumb.
-
@DadJokes , just curious. When you filed your taxes this year, did you itemize your mortgage interest? Take allowable deductions for your child/ren? Daycare? Are they or will they attend public schools?
If yes to any of the above, why are we subsidizing YOUR lifestyle?
It's semantically disingenuous to compare a tax offset - which enables someone to keep more of his or her own money - in the same way as a welfare handout - which gives someone another person's redistributed money.
As for public schools, if DadJokes pays his taxes, he is entitled to send kids to public schools. Now it might be that if you take a strict view of it that a low income earner is being subsidised via public schools, if the tax paid is less than the average cost per child times the number of children in school. But somehow I think you're not trying to make that point. You're instead trying to combine and conflate several different things for your own particular purposes.
-
@DadJokes , just curious. When you filed your taxes this year, did you itemize your mortgage interest? Take allowable deductions for your child/ren? Daycare? Are they or will they attend public schools?
If yes to any of the above, why are we subsidizing YOUR lifestyle?
It's semantically disingenuous to compare a tax offset - which enables someone to keep more of his or her own money - in the same way as a welfare handout - which gives someone another person's redistributed money.
As for public schools, if DadJokes pays his taxes, he is entitled to send kids to public schools. Now it might be that if you take a strict view of it that a low income earner is being subsidised via public schools, if the tax paid is less than the average cost per child times the number of children in school. But somehow I think you're not trying to make that point. You're instead trying to combine and conflate several different things for your own particular purposes.
Thank you for your feedback.
-
@DadJokes , just curious. When you filed your taxes this year, did you itemize your mortgage interest? Take allowable deductions for your child/ren? Daycare? Are they or will they attend public schools?
If yes to any of the above, why are we subsidizing YOUR lifestyle?
It's semantically disingenuous to compare a tax offset - which enables someone to keep more of his or her own money - in the same way as a welfare handout - which gives someone another person's redistributed money.
As for public schools, if DadJokes pays his taxes, he is entitled to send kids to public schools. Now it might be that if you take a strict view of it that a low income earner is being subsidised via public schools, if the tax paid is less than the average cost per child times the number of children in school. But somehow I think you're not trying to make that point. You're instead trying to combine and conflate several different things for your own particular purposes.
Hear hear.
It's so much easier to appeal to emotion than logic and reason, just like the video the OP posted. The apparently simple and powerful premise of taking money from the rich and redistributing it to the poor has historically never been simple and often been catastrophic for rich and poor alike.
-
Hear hear.
It's so much easier to appeal to emotion than logic and reason, just like the video the OP posted. The apparently simple and powerful premise of taking money from the rich and redistributing it to the poor has historically never been simple and often been catastrophic for rich and poor alike.
Forgive my extremely illogical and emotional appeal. I can barely type through all of my tears right now, but it seems to me that there are a lot of countries with both a higher effective tax rate, and high Human Development Index than the United States.
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-us-taxes-compare-internationally (https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-us-taxes-compare-internationally)
http://hdr.undp.org/en/composite/HDI (http://hdr.undp.org/en/composite/HDI)
-
Hear hear.
It's so much easier to appeal to emotion than logic and reason, just like the video the OP posted. The apparently simple and powerful premise of taking money from the rich and redistributing it to the poor has historically never been simple and often been catastrophic for rich and poor alike.
Forgive my extremely illogical and emotional appeal. I can barely type through all of my tears right now, but it seems to me that there are a lot of countries with both a higher effective tax rate, and high Human Development Index than the United States.
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-us-taxes-compare-internationally (https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-us-taxes-compare-internationally)
http://hdr.undp.org/en/composite/HDI (http://hdr.undp.org/en/composite/HDI)
Since when were we talking about tax rate? I thought this was about the definition of living wage, or government policies to prevent high CEO salaries.
I admit that I am also biased by emotion, as my grandparents lived through the Communist revolution. In case you're not familiar with the history, it was all about wealth redistribution. Mao came into power because he promised to take money from the 1% and give it to the 99%.
My grandparents were neither particularly rich nor particularly poor, middle to lower-middle class is probably the best description. They most definitely did not benefit, and my grandmother loathed Mao during her lifetime. They got by because my grandfather joined the army.
There are other examples in history where the wealth redistribution game went terribly wrong.
I agree that our tax policy is flawed and could use a lot of improvement. I just want to caution against raw emotional appeals, demonizing of corporations, and drastically simple solutions.
-
Hear hear.
It's so much easier to appeal to emotion than logic and reason, just like the video the OP posted. The apparently simple and powerful premise of taking money from the rich and redistributing it to the poor has historically never been simple and often been catastrophic for rich and poor alike.
Forgive my extremely illogical and emotional appeal. I can barely type through all of my tears right now, but it seems to me that there are a lot of countries with both a higher effective tax rate, and high Human Development Index than the United States.
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-us-taxes-compare-internationally (https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-us-taxes-compare-internationally)
http://hdr.undp.org/en/composite/HDI (http://hdr.undp.org/en/composite/HDI)
Taxes in the USA are actually pretty comparable to a number of other countries which might be thought to have higher tax rates (including Canada and Australia), as long as you include in it the Healthcare Stupidity Tax that you pay in the USA. Which makes the disparities in HDI between the USA and other countries even more stark.
-
Since when were we talking about tax rate? I thought this was about the definition of living wage, or government policies to prevent high CEO salaries.
I admit that I am also biased by emotion, as my grandparents lived through the Communist revolution. In case you're not familiar with the history, it was all about wealth redistribution. Mao came into power because he promised to take money from the 1% and give it to the 99%.
My grandparents were neither particularly rich nor particularly poor, middle to lower-middle class is probably the best description. They most definitely did not benefit, and my grandmother loathed Mao during her lifetime. They got by because my grandfather joined the army.
There are other examples in history where the wealth redistribution game went terribly wrong.
I agree that our tax policy is flawed and could use a lot of improvement. I just want to caution against raw emotional appeals, demonizing of corporations, and drastically simple solutions.
I've personally been discussing corporate taxes at least since yesterday. I also think taxes are implicit in any discussion on living wages, since a living wage is the wage someone needs to operate in their locale. If they're not making that wage, the difference is probably made up by welfare, which is funded by taxes. Also, I think taxes are an implicit part of any discussion involving wealth redistribution.
I don't think I'm trying to demonize corporations either. I even went as far as to say Dimon and JP Morgan's extreme profits
doesn't make them bad or evil,
I'm very sorry that your grandparents lived through the suckiness of Mao's China. By no means should their cautionary experience be ignored. But I think there are other, more successful models for wealth redistribution that we can look to as well. Canada, the Nordic Countries, Germany, etc.
My biggest concern (likely shared by Congresswoman Porter) is that human labor has become incredibly devalued in the past four or five decades, thanks to technology and globalization. If we look to the future, it's going to go almost to zero for everyone. That's why I find the direction these discussions go in troubling. Maybe a single mom in Irvine California should spend less than $40 on a cell phone plan, but frugality has hard limits, and we'll rub up against them sooner or later.
-
@DadJokes , just curious. When you filed your taxes this year, did you itemize your mortgage interest? Take allowable deductions for your child/ren? Daycare? Are they or will they attend public schools?
If yes to any of the above, why are we subsidizing YOUR lifestyle?
As a CPA and as a citizen, I would love for the IRS to get rid of all the stupid loopholes. Figure out a fair flat tax percentage based on income and let people spend their money however they choose. But that's a side tangent to the discussion.
-
Hear hear.
It's so much easier to appeal to emotion than logic and reason, just like the video the OP posted. The apparently simple and powerful premise of taking money from the rich and redistributing it to the poor has historically never been simple and often been catastrophic for rich and poor alike.
Forgive my extremely illogical and emotional appeal. I can barely type through all of my tears right now, but it seems to me that there are a lot of countries with both a higher effective tax rate, and high Human Development Index than the United States.
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-us-taxes-compare-internationally (https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-us-taxes-compare-internationally)
http://hdr.undp.org/en/composite/HDI (http://hdr.undp.org/en/composite/HDI)
Since when were we talking about tax rate? I thought this was about the definition of living wage, or government policies to prevent high CEO salaries.
I admit that I am also biased by emotion, as my grandparents lived through the Communist revolution. In case you're not familiar with the history, it was all about wealth redistribution. Mao came into power because he promised to take money from the 1% and give it to the 99%.
My grandparents were neither particularly rich nor particularly poor, middle to lower-middle class is probably the best description. They most definitely did not benefit, and my grandmother loathed Mao during her lifetime. They got by because my grandfather joined the army.
There are other examples in history where the wealth redistribution game went terribly wrong.
I agree that our tax policy is flawed and could use a lot of improvement. I just want to caution against raw emotional appeals, demonizing of corporations, and drastically simple solutions.
Seriously? No one here is arguing or remotely arguing for financial redistribution of the likes of Mao, or Stalin, Or Pol Pot. We are talking about what is a living wage, and whether free market capitalization (which isn't completely free market as corporations through their many years of lobbying have many tax breaks and fiscal advantages) over an individual person has gone too far. To argue that political redistribution of resources is a "bad idea" because of people like Mao, is not a logical argument.
If anything, those revolts and the ability for a dictator to gain control, only happen when a political system becomes so corrupt and unfair the average person feels the system no longer works for them and there is no hope other than to tear it all down.
Other countries have shown us you can both have a higher tax basis AND a higher quality of life, higher public health, higher life expectancy, AND higher social economic mobility than what we experience in the US. So yeah I would say there is definitely room for improvement for the current state of the US. Most not likely in a system that both allows CEOs to influence who are on the boards and have essentially unlimited compensation, AND the average person can work full time and not afford to live in the same city they work in.
-
My biggest concern (likely shared by Congresswoman Porter) is that human labor has become incredibly devalued in the past four or five decades, thanks to technology and globalization. If we look to the future, it's going to go almost to zero for everyone. That's why I find the direction these discussions go in troubling. Maybe a single mom in Irvine California should spend less than $40 on a cell phone plan, but frugality has hard limits, and we'll rub up against them sooner or later.
Oh for sure, the devaluing of unskilled labor and the impending AI revolution is something I worry about too. But I feel like we should be finding NEW solutions to these problems. The current Democratic rhetoric of "Let's beat the Megacorps to the ground!" just seems like a repeat of past mistakes. FWIW, I think many Republican policies are retarded as well. Makes it really hard to figure out who to vote for come election time. I really wish there was some way to get rid of the two party system.
-
My biggest concern (likely shared by Congresswoman Porter) is that human labor has become incredibly devalued in the past four or five decades, thanks to technology and globalization. If we look to the future, it's going to go almost to zero for everyone. That's why I find the direction these discussions go in troubling. Maybe a single mom in Irvine California should spend less than $40 on a cell phone plan, but frugality has hard limits, and we'll rub up against them sooner or later.
Oh for sure, the devaluing of unskilled labor and the impending AI revolution is something I worry about too. But I feel like we should be finding NEW solutions to these problems. The current Democratic rhetoric of "Let's beat the Megacorps to the ground!" just seems like a repeat of past mistakes. FWIW, I think many Republican policies are retarded as well. Makes it really hard to figure out who to vote for come election time. I really wish there was some way to get rid of the two party system.
You consider slightly raising the minimum wage to be beating megacorps into the ground at a time where corporations are posting some of their highest profits ever?
-
Oh for sure, the devaluing of unskilled labor and the impending AI revolution is something I worry about too. But I feel like we should be finding NEW solutions to these problems. The current Democratic rhetoric of "Let's beat the Megacorps to the ground!" just seems like a repeat of past mistakes. FWIW, I think many Republican policies are retarded as well. Makes it really hard to figure out who to vote for come election time. I really wish there was some way to get rid of the two party system.
Hmm. I don't know. The Republican president elected in 2000 cut taxes dramatically, and corporate profits hit all time highs. Then, when things got bad, he bailed out the banks. His Democrat successor bailed out the auto industry, and then corporate profits hit all time highs again. Then a Republican came in in 2016, dramatically cut corporate taxes, and profits hit all time highs once again in 2018.
I can make the case that both parties have been big friends to Megacorps as of late. There are some candidates who are looking to change that though. I'm interested in what they do if they win.
-
Hear hear.
It's so much easier to appeal to emotion than logic and reason, just like the video the OP posted. The apparently simple and powerful premise of taking money from the rich and redistributing it to the poor has historically never been simple and often been catastrophic for rich and poor alike.
Forgive my extremely illogical and emotional appeal. I can barely type through all of my tears right now, but it seems to me that there are a lot of countries with both a higher effective tax rate, and high Human Development Index than the United States.
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-us-taxes-compare-internationally (https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-us-taxes-compare-internationally)
http://hdr.undp.org/en/composite/HDI (http://hdr.undp.org/en/composite/HDI)
Since when were we talking about tax rate? I thought this was about the definition of living wage, or government policies to prevent high CEO salaries.
I admit that I am also biased by emotion, as my grandparents lived through the Communist revolution. In case you're not familiar with the history, it was all about wealth redistribution. Mao came into power because he promised to take money from the 1% and give it to the 99%.
My grandparents were neither particularly rich nor particularly poor, middle to lower-middle class is probably the best description. They most definitely did not benefit, and my grandmother loathed Mao during her lifetime. They got by because my grandfather joined the army.
There are other examples in history where the wealth redistribution game went terribly wrong.
I agree that our tax policy is flawed and could use a lot of improvement. I just want to caution against raw emotional appeals, demonizing of corporations, and drastically simple solutions.
Seriously? No one here is arguing or remotely arguing for financial redistribution of the likes of Mao, or Stalin, Or Pol Pot. We are talking about what is a living wage, and whether free market capitalization (which isn't completely free market as corporations through their many years of lobbying have many tax breaks and fiscal advantages) over an individual person has gone too far. To argue that political redistribution of resources is a "bad idea" because of people like Mao, is not a logical argument.
If anything, those revolts and the ability for a dictator to gain control, only happen when a political system becomes so corrupt and unfair the average person feels the system no longer works for them and there is no hope other than to tear it all down.
Other countries have shown us you can both have a higher tax basis AND a higher quality of life, higher public health, higher life expectancy, AND higher social economic mobility than what we experience in the US. So yeah I would say there is definitely room for improvement for the current state of the US. Most not likely in a system that both allows CEOs to influence who are on the boards and have essentially unlimited compensation, AND the average person can work full time and not afford to live in the same city they work in.
I think I agree with everything you're saying here and I probably even agree with some of Porter's stances on policy, but I still take issue with her example and it's presentation. I don't think her example showed either of the points in your comment I've bolded in that a single mother is not the average person and I think it's quite likely that she can live in the same city she works in (or at least within commutable distance).
In terms of Porter's larger point this may be splitting hairs, but anyone who wants to discredit her is going to be splitting those same hairs.
I actually thought about posting this as a case study before it was posted here. That probably would have been more fun but I was worried it might get too political for that sub forum.
-
a single mother is not the average person
There are 327.2 million people in the US (https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2018/feb/20/kevin-nicholson/which-higher-number-people-or-number-guns-america/ (https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2018/feb/20/kevin-nicholson/which-higher-number-people-or-number-guns-america/)). There are 13.7 single parents raising 22 million children (https://www.verywellfamily.com/single-parent-census-data-2997668 (https://www.verywellfamily.com/single-parent-census-data-2997668)). While a single parent might not be the norm . . . 1 in 10 people in the US are in a single parent family. It's pretty common.
-
Seriously? No one here is arguing or remotely arguing for financial redistribution of the likes of Mao, or Stalin, Or Pol Pot. We are talking about what is a living wage, and whether free market capitalization (which isn't completely free market as corporations through their many years of lobbying have many tax breaks and fiscal advantages) over an individual person has gone too far. To argue that political redistribution of resources is a "bad idea" because of people like Mao, is not a logical argument.
If anything, those revolts and the ability for a dictator to gain control, only happen when a political system becomes so corrupt and unfair the average person feels the system no longer works for them and there is no hope other than to tear it all down.
Other countries have shown us you can both have a higher tax basis AND a higher quality of life, higher public health, higher life expectancy, AND higher social economic mobility than what we experience in the US. So yeah I would say there is definitely room for improvement for the current state of the US. Most not likely in a system that both allows CEOs to influence who are on the boards and have essentially unlimited compensation, AND the average person can work full time and not afford to live in the same city they work in.
I'm actually Canadian and have spent more years living in Canada than the U.S., so I'm pretty familiar with Canadian society and which aspects are better or worse than the U.S. It's not perfect by any means, and there's a lot of economic dependence on our southern neighbour. It doesn't face many of the same problems simply because it just has less people.
I do think healthcare in the U.S. is incredibly stupid. That was probably my biggest culture shock moving here.
History is very complicated, it's never as simple as: people were dissatisfied, so dictator took over. Movements that start out seemingly well-intentioned can snowball down a slippery slope that takes the whole society with it. Mao's Communist Party started as a guerrilla movement during the Japanese occupation of China. Do you think any of the average Joe during that time thought it was going to become what it did?
We face very different challenges in our current society than anything in the past, and simply trying to equalize everything just isn't realistic. What kind of repercussions do you think forcing JPM to pay their entry-level high school graduate positions $21/hr would have? Many previous posters have already detailed the wide-ranging complications that would arise from this. It certainly isn't as simple as taking money out of the CEO's pocket and putting in the single mother's.
-
a single mother is not the average person
There are 327.2 million people in the US (https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2018/feb/20/kevin-nicholson/which-higher-number-people-or-number-guns-america/ (https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2018/feb/20/kevin-nicholson/which-higher-number-people-or-number-guns-america/)). There are 13.7 single parents raising 22 million children (https://www.verywellfamily.com/single-parent-census-data-2997668 (https://www.verywellfamily.com/single-parent-census-data-2997668)). While a single parent might not be the norm . . . 1 in 10 people in the US are in a single parent family. It's pretty common.
I probably would not be in that group as I'm divorced, and both of my kids parents are alive. But i have my kids the majority of the time, hold down a household and do not receive child support. So functionally it feels like being a single parent.
-
Also, speaking of inequality, why do you think I left Canada for the U.S., despite better healthcare, better social safety nets, better society? (I like Canadians much better than Americans, sorry.)
Inequality is just as rampant in Canada, and the U.S. offered way more opportunities for people willing to work hard to reap the fruits of their labors. Many of our friends from high school and college took the same route, and have done very well for themselves. The ones who stayed in Canada have pretty much stayed at the same socioeconomic level as their parents, sometimes worse.
-
Also, speaking of inequality, why do you think I left Canada for the U.S., despite better healthcare, better social safety nets, better society? (I like Canadians much better than Americans, sorry.)
Inequality is just as rampant in Canada, and the U.S. offered way more opportunities for people willing to work hard to reap the fruits of their labors. Many of our friends from high school and college took the same route, and have done very well for themselves. The ones who stayed in Canada have pretty much stayed at the same socioeconomic level as their parents, sometimes worse.
Oddly enough, socioeconomic mobility is greater in Canada than the US. But that is speaking on the average. There are corporations and industries that are international and having the opportunity to move here may increase your social mobility. Heck, that might be the best of both worlds; grow up in canada with assured medical, healthcare, education, move here for the jobs.
-
a single mother is not the average person
There are 327.2 million people in the US (https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2018/feb/20/kevin-nicholson/which-higher-number-people-or-number-guns-america/ (https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2018/feb/20/kevin-nicholson/which-higher-number-people-or-number-guns-america/)). There are 13.7 single parents raising 22 million children (https://www.verywellfamily.com/single-parent-census-data-2997668 (https://www.verywellfamily.com/single-parent-census-data-2997668)). While a single parent might not be the norm . . . 1 in 10 people in the US are in a single parent family. It's pretty common.
I probably would not be in that group as I'm divorced, but both of my kids parents are alive. But i have my kids the majority of the time, hold down a household and do not receive child support. So functionally it feels like being a single parent.
Actually it looks like you would be counted in this number. It even counts parents who are married to someone other than the biological parent if I'm understanding correctly.
Of the mothers who are custodial parents:
44.2% are currently divorced or separated
36.8% have never been married
18% are married; in most cases, these numbers represent women who have remarried
1.1% were widowed
Of the fathers who are custodial parents:
53.5% are divorced or separated
24.7% have never married1
While I'm always interested in statistics this seems to be getting off topic pretty quickly. I stand by my opinion that using a single mother's expenses to establish a living wage is not a good idea.
-
Also, and this is nitpicky too but I think it's kinda funny, The very first line in her calculation is wrong.
She wrote $16.50/hr x 40hrs/wk x 52wks = $35,070 but really it's $34,320.
And I don't think she factored in 1 dependent or the child tax credit.
-
Also, and this is nitpicky too but I think it's kinda funny, The very first line in her calculation is wrong.
She wrote $16.50/hr x 40hrs/wk x 52wks = $35,070 but really it's $34,320.
And I don't think she factored in 1 dependent or the child tax credit.
I don't think so either. I arrived at a similar calculation as her when I ran the numbers for only one exemption.
I assume this is on purpose, and that the point is that extra exemptions, rebates, and refundable credits are counted as government money to help make ends meet since wages aren't high enough.
Again, two ways to go on this, JPM could pay higher salaries, or we could decline to give them such rosy tax treatment so that we can better afford to provide single mothers the help they need without running such high deficits.
-
Looking forward to making a better comment now that I am aware what this thread is all about. Just saw it on Seth Meyers - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrIezztmr3E
-
My biggest concern (likely shared by Congresswoman Porter) is that human labor has become incredibly devalued in the past four or five decades, thanks to technology and globalization. If we look to the future, it's going to go almost to zero for everyone. That's why I find the direction these discussions go in troubling. Maybe a single mom in Irvine California should spend less than $40 on a cell phone plan, but frugality has hard limits, and we'll rub up against them sooner or later.
Oh for sure, the devaluing of unskilled labor and the impending AI revolution is something I worry about too. But I feel like we should be finding NEW solutions to these problems. The current Democratic rhetoric of "Let's beat the Megacorps to the ground!" just seems like a repeat of past mistakes. FWIW, I think many Republican policies are retarded as well. Makes it really hard to figure out who to vote for come election time. I really wish there was some way to get rid of the two party system.
You consider slightly raising the minimum wage to be beating megacorps into the ground at a time where corporations are posting some of their highest profits ever?
Slightly raising the minimum wage is not at all what candidates like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are proposing. I don't know if they are saying what they're saying just to get votes, because I'm pretty sure measures like forcing corporations to disband would have far reaching consequences that they cannot foresee.
-
I am unclear as to what exactly your argument is - it seems to be that any full time job should be able to support a single mother with a child, child care, a non-shared living situation and a car in a HCOL area but that doesn't seem reasonable to me.
My points are as follows:
1.) Our entire economy, top to bottom, needs re-examining. A good place to start is by looking at what responsibility employers have to pay wages that are commensurate with the cost of living, OR, we need to re-examine the efficacy of granting huge tax cuts to $100bn revenue companies, which further stresses the safety net.
2.) I think it's pretty out there how aggressively some posters think this hypothetical woman should pursue racing to the bottom even further when the man sitting at the table runs a bank that made $32 billion in net income last year.
1) Instead of trying to make employers pay people beyond the value they bring to the company, how about... I don't know... having people be responsible for their own financial situation?? Don't go live on your own if you can't afford it. Don't go buy a car if you can't afford it. Don't go start a family if you can't afford it. And let charity and government help the few that find themselves in trouble despite trying to do the right thing? People used to have some pride in being responsible for themselves instead of thinking that the struggling mom and pop store down the street should shell out $20/hour to the cashier because she can't keep her legs closed or insists on living in that nicer apartment etc.
2) I think it's pretty out there how some posters think things would be better if only the highest paid people didn't make so much money, or if companies weren't allowed to make a profit...
-
Maybe a middle of the road solution would be for JP Morgan to offer more opportunities for advancement. They could offer a benefit to help bank tellers get the education and training they would need to become loan officers or financial advisors. Basically a hand-up instead of a hand-out.
I agree with you, but this still wouldn't pacify some in this thread, who'll always gravitate towards the situation of those on the lowest rungs of the ability/work ethic ladder. After all, if one person advances, that means another misses out, and what to do about the poor second person?
Well obviously it's the fault of the CEO that the other person's life is what it is, so they should probably just give that person a million dollars or something as restitution for having been successful... only the rich and/or successful are responsible for anyone's life situation (especially the less fortunate, they're definitely responsible for that), clearly...
-
I am unclear as to what exactly your argument is - it seems to be that any full time job should be able to support a single mother with a child, child care, a non-shared living situation and a car in a HCOL area but that doesn't seem reasonable to me.
My points are as follows:
1.) Our entire economy, top to bottom, needs re-examining. A good place to start is by looking at what responsibility employers have to pay wages that are commensurate with the cost of living, OR, we need to re-examine the efficacy of granting huge tax cuts to $100bn revenue companies, which further stresses the safety net.
2.) I think it's pretty out there how aggressively some posters think this hypothetical woman should pursue racing to the bottom even further when the man sitting at the table runs a bank that made $32 billion in net income last year.
1) Instead of trying to make employers pay people beyond the value they bring to the company, how about... I don't know... having people be responsible for their own financial situation?? Don't go live on your own if you can't afford it. Don't go buy a car if you can't afford it. Don't go start a family if you can't afford it. And let charity and government help the few that find themselves in trouble despite trying to do the right thing? People used to have some pride in being responsible for themselves instead of thinking that the struggling mom and pop store down the street should shell out $20/hour to the cashier because she can't keep her legs closed or insists on living in that nicer apartment etc.
2) I think it's pretty out there how some posters think things would be better if only the highest paid people didn't make so much money, or if companies weren't allowed to make a profit...
Seriously? "Can't keep her legs closed"? What misogynist Neanderthal closet did that crawl out of?
-
Also, speaking of inequality, why do you think I left Canada for the U.S., despite better healthcare, better social safety nets, better society? (I like Canadians much better than Americans, sorry.)
Inequality is just as rampant in Canada, and the U.S. offered way more opportunities for people willing to work hard to reap the fruits of their labors. Many of our friends from high school and college took the same route, and have done very well for themselves. The ones who stayed in Canada have pretty much stayed at the same socioeconomic level as their parents, sometimes worse.
Oddly enough, socioeconomic mobility is greater in Canada than the US. But that is speaking on the average. There are corporations and industries that are international and having the opportunity to move here may increase your social mobility. Heck, that might be the best of both worlds; grow up in canada with assured medical, healthcare, education, move here for the jobs.
That's a good idea. My Canadian university degree cost very little. I understand they've raised tuition significantly since then, but I think it's still less than here. We're already considering FIRE-ing there for the healthcare, but this is another good reason to raise our kids there. I'm just not a big fan of snow, and housing in the more temperate places all cost an arm and a leg :(
-
I am unclear as to what exactly your argument is - it seems to be that any full time job should be able to support a single mother with a child, child care, a non-shared living situation and a car in a HCOL area but that doesn't seem reasonable to me.
My points are as follows:
1.) Our entire economy, top to bottom, needs re-examining. A good place to start is by looking at what responsibility employers have to pay wages that are commensurate with the cost of living, OR, we need to re-examine the efficacy of granting huge tax cuts to $100bn revenue companies, which further stresses the safety net.
2.) I think it's pretty out there how aggressively some posters think this hypothetical woman should pursue racing to the bottom even further when the man sitting at the table runs a bank that made $32 billion in net income last year.
1) Instead of trying to make employers pay people beyond the value they bring to the company, how about... I don't know... having people be responsible for their own financial situation?? Don't go live on your own if you can't afford it. Don't go buy a car if you can't afford it. Don't go start a family if you can't afford it. And let charity and government help the few that find themselves in trouble despite trying to do the right thing? People used to have some pride in being responsible for themselves instead of thinking that the struggling mom and pop store down the street should shell out $20/hour to the cashier because she can't keep her legs closed or insists on living in that nicer apartment etc.
2) I think it's pretty out there how some posters think things would be better if only the highest paid people didn't make so much money, or if companies weren't allowed to make a profit...
Sounds good to me. And while we are at it...How about employers and companies be responsible for their own financial situation? How about they not use roads paid for with taxes? How about they start their own utility companies? How about they start their own public schools and universities to train employees instead of relying on public servants to teach people how to read? End city and state corporate welfare and tax breaks that take money out of the pockets of taxpayers and put it directly into the hands of corporations? How about drug companies stop selling drugs developed in government labs? I'm sick of these freeloaders.
-
If you are arguing for a fully user-paid society, I think you'd find that the rich would really get richer. So be careful what you wish for.
As an Australian, we have better safety nets than you Americans, but we high earners in Australia pay a heavy price - our marginal rate is higher (on incomes over $180,000, we pay 45% + 2.5% tax, soon to be 47% + 2.5% tax); our luxury cars are subject to a 33% tax (a Porsche 911 costs $260,000 here compared to $140,000 if we did a straight currency swap); and our spread of incomes is lower. I know for a fact from speaking to my friends in the States who are surgeons/lawyers that the top professionals in Australia get paid less - mid 6 figures instead of high 6 figures, high 6 figures instead of low 7 figures. These are the things we sacrifice for a nicer society. I'm not saying it's not a worthwhile sacrifice, but there's always a price to pay.
-
Seriously? "Can't keep her legs closed"? What misogynist Neanderthal closet did that crawl out of?
I was going to respond to that post thoughtfully, but you saved me the trouble. Obviously a single parent household is ideal for nobody, but to take it out on the one parent who actually stuck around is a special brand of shitty.
On top of that, the guy doesn’t know how to use the enter key, making his post difficult to read and respond to. And he closes by talking about how “profit shouldn’t be allowed”, which absolutely no one here got even remotely close to saying.
Three strikes.
-
I know! While we're at it, we should just all agree that women don't deserve equal pay!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNnRamMk7xo
-
Seriously? "Can't keep her legs closed"? What misogynist Neanderthal closet did that crawl out of?
I was going to respond to that post thoughtfully, but you saved me the trouble. Obviously a single parent household is ideal for nobody, but to take it out on the one parent who actually stuck around is a special brand of shitty.
Not to mention we were just discussing statistics on single parents which showed most are divorced or separated, suggesting there were two parents at one time. Not even a little sympathy for the 1.1% who are widows? ouch.
Not that it really even matters to the discussion. Even if someone made a mistake, punishing them indefinitely is not good for them, their child, or the society they're bringing that child up in.
Given jlcnuke's comment ignored a lot of what's already been said in this thread, I suggest we proceed by ignoring his as well.
-
I can't watch the video right now, but its probably the same argument as Walmart, fast food etc. I don't understand the concept that employers should have to make sure that you can pay all of your expenses. Employment is at will for both the employee and employer in the US. So if you don't want a job at the amount that they are willing to pay, then don't work there.
So major employers paying less than the living wage aren't taking advantage of their workers in your opinion? Don't you think that if those workers had any other options they'd work for an employer who clearly doesn't care about their welfare?
I think it's an absolute disgrace if employees can't afford a basic lifestyle while working one fulltime job. That should be enough to cover rent for a modest apartment, utilities, food, health insurance and yes, shock, even internet, phone etc, all those "luxuries" that are really necessities these days.
Also, as a tax payer I feel strongly that we shouldn't let CEO's and shareholders get away with burdening society instead of taking a pay cut themselves.
Working my way through the thread, the inevitable backlash against wageslave23, but this stood out.
Norway as a country has adopted exactly this philosophy. It still has capitalism in the consumer market, but also socialized medical and education benefits (not tied to employment). Sure, there are no Norwegian billionaires, but is that actually a measure of a country being progressive?
-
Looks like that employee could learn something on this forum! Quick search showed lower priced housing in the area, and 400/month food budget for 2 people is well above others here with 4 people.
I get that it might not be a living wage, but everyone can cherry pick numbers.
Perhaps this would be another good humanitarian effort for Mustachians, free budget counseling for the working poor. I'm sure we could find some challenging case studies and it would be interesting social experiment.
I worry quite a bit about this. As I stated in the 'wealth tax (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/wealth-tax-and-the-future-102404/msg2317321/#msg2317321)' thread, those at the bottom are blaming themselves for being poor while there are some real forces at work (higher compounding ratios for capital vs. labor) which make 'saving more' irrelevant in capitalism.
-
This is a very interesting thread. I like hearing from both sides and can empathize with both. I'm somewhere in the middle where I want to help people who really need it but don't want people to take advantage of the system. There isn't a simple solution. To solve or improve the situation would require a broad system knowledge and understanding of the consequences of the proposed changes.
I like the idea of free or almost free higher education. Something like what the University of the People offers (https://www.uopeople.edu). I think one of the many barriers to higher paying careers is the enormous cost of college education and other training programs. It's a huge industry and takes advantage of the desperation of people who want to try to rise up out of poverty or lower economic classes. I hope that free or low cost online education can really take off and create opportunities for people.
I feel that things like basic food, minimal shelter, healthcare, and education should be provided for all citizens in the ideal society. Actually this is what is provided in most prisons, I think. I don't really like the idea of giving people money that they can just do what they want with because I feel like this can be exploited. I would rather provide people with services that will keep them off the streets, fed, in good health, and provide them with a way to educate themselves and lift themselves out of poverty. What if we had communities with strict rules where people could get room and board for free or for working part time, while they get an education? They have to do well in their studies and complete their work tasks in order to stay. At the end of the stay they will have a degree and be provided with help finding a job.
-
I am unclear as to what exactly your argument is - it seems to be that any full time job should be able to support a single mother with a child, child care, a non-shared living situation and a car in a HCOL area but that doesn't seem reasonable to me.
My points are as follows:
1.) Our entire economy, top to bottom, needs re-examining. A good place to start is by looking at what responsibility employers have to pay wages that are commensurate with the cost of living, OR, we need to re-examine the efficacy of granting huge tax cuts to $100bn revenue companies, which further stresses the safety net.
2.) I think it's pretty out there how aggressively some posters think this hypothetical woman should pursue racing to the bottom even further when the man sitting at the table runs a bank that made $32 billion in net income last year.
1) Instead of trying to make employers pay people beyond the value they bring to the company, how about... I don't know... having people be responsible for their own financial situation?? Don't go live on your own if you can't afford it. Don't go buy a car if you can't afford it. Don't go start a family if you can't afford it. And let charity and government help the few that find themselves in trouble despite trying to do the right thing? People used to have some pride in being responsible for themselves instead of thinking that the struggling mom and pop store down the street should shell out $20/hour to the cashier because she can't keep her legs closed or insists on living in that nicer apartment etc.
2) I think it's pretty out there how some posters think things would be better if only the highest paid people didn't make so much money, or if companies weren't allowed to make a profit...
Sounds good to me. And while we are at it...How about employers and companies be responsible for their own financial situation? How about they not use roads paid for with taxes? How about they start their own utility companies? How about they start their own public schools and universities to train employees instead of relying on public servants to teach people how to read? End city and state corporate welfare and tax breaks that take money out of the pockets of taxpayers and put it directly into the hands of corporations? How about drug companies stop selling drugs developed in government labs? I'm sick of these freeloaders.
Sounds great. Let's stop taxing them at all while we're at it. And while we're at it, let's just make all things funded by those who use them, whether person or company, after all, you're sick of the freeloaders right??
-
I don’t think it was suggested that everyone has to move. This employee chooses to live alone in their own apartment, spend too much on an oversized vehicle(for her), eat fabulous food, and still run a deficit. For someone with those needs, maybe they need to find another location, figure out how to make more money, or just run up CC debt. That’s the employees choice.
I lived with roommates until I was married. There would be plenty of eager, unattached, HS educated people who could easily make this work. Plus, at close to 17/hour, plenty of attached, partnered, married, or other people that would be sharing housing that could take this job.
On a macroeconomic scale, are we just saying that huge portions of the country, including our largest job centers like Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, New York, and Austin are off limits to median income single mothers?
Congresswoman Porter was not actually asking Dimon to solve one single mother's financial woes. She was illustrating a market failure. A market that demands low skill workers, but does not pay them high enough wages, is a market failure. There are ways to address this failure that don't include the mass exodus of single mothers from urban job centers.
Remember, this job pays more than 5k net cash than MMM budget for his family.
MMM is incredibly wealthy. Wealthy people have options available to them that poor people do not. And his published low spending does not truly capture the cost of his lifestyle. It's meant as an illustration of how people of means can hack the system, live on less, and build wealth. It's not guideline for single mothers.
Wow, this post is like, wow!
-
I rather see minimum wage eliminated. Putting all this on the employer is just bad in so many ways. I would also like welfare programs, subsidized housing, etc eliminated as that just angers people who are working hard but see their money transferred to the irresponsible, but we need something because making everyone homeless sucks too. When I was younger, I would have liked the option of not working some crappy job to make ends meet and pursue entrepreneurship which I think is good for society as a whole.
What would be nice
Inflation is calculated on what 60% of people actually spend money on, so it includes stuff like healthcare, college, etc.
Universal Basic Income that is the same for everyone and is paid out for each person (so larger families get more) that keeps up with inflation and is enough to live on if needed.
Universal Health Care that is good enough where people do not go bankrupt and can get most issues treated.
All welfare like programs eliminated, universal income should be enough to replace.
Strong financial education k thru 12 that teaches budgets, compound interest, etc.
-
The problem that no one wants to say is that at its fundamental level, the employee in many situations does not provide even as much value as minimum wage.
If there were no minimum wage, there would be adequate labour supply to have people compete for jobs for less money than minimum wage most of the time. That lower value is the true, free market value of the labor for many of these positions. People taking those jobs would surely have tough lives.
Thankfully, we as a society have decided that its not acceptable to let people work for so little, and we have created minimum wage. In itself this is a form of welfare - paid for by all customers of whatever business it applies to.
I think this is a good thing, but it is a rule that we have imposed on business. If you want the business to go even further, we should mandate it because we cannot expect the business to do this willingly. If one business (ie a big publicly facing company who gets scrutinized) does, it puts itself at an inherent disadvantage to the local shop owner (which usually pays less than big box stores) who do not feel compelled to pay more.
-
Wow, this post is like, wow!
Wow, like how, wow?
-
I am not a business owner. But I always thought that if I was one, I would try to subsidize childcare. I think it would be a win win. I go to a small beauty salon, which has 5 employees. 4 of the 5 are currently pregnant, due within 3 months of each other. Some of them are trying to trade off babysitting, taking off one day a week. The salon is large with a few extra rooms. Why can't the owner provide the space and everyone would chip in to pay the babysitter. As a business owner, you have the space available anyway, your employees could work one day extra a week, you'd have less call offs for babysitting issues, and it would be a good perk for hiring. Benefits are as important if not more important than minimum wage.
-
Another bit of history from Communist China that many westerners might not know about.
After all the crazy shit (cultural revolution, famine, etc.) passed and Mao kicked the bucket, things stabilized and life was pretty good for a lot of people. Government owned corporations provided free housing and many benefits. My mom had free childcare where she worked. She brought me to work and was able to go breastfeed me whenever she wanted. Companies gave out benefits for food, transportation, clothing, etc. They took care of funeral expenses. Your company basically took care of you from birth until death. Many people didn't actually have to spend a cent of their income on basic needs. You could even go to your boss for marriage counseling if your spouse was cheating on you.
But.... those corporations stagnated. They just weren't competitive. I mean, why would their employees work hard if all their needs were met? There was no innovation, private corporations were popping up, factories shut down and innumerable government employees were laid off. It was a really sad time.
We, as a species, tend to only strive when we need to survive, when there are wants that aren't met.
It's just something interesting to think about before we start pushing for more socialism.
-
Wow, this post is like, wow!
Wow, like how, wow?
The idea that large groups of people should leave HCOL areas. And the recognition that maybe MMM does not live on 25k/yr
-
If you are arguing for a fully user-paid society, I think you'd find that the rich would really get richer. So be careful what you wish for.
As an Australian, we have better safety nets than you Americans, but we high earners in Australia pay a heavy price - our marginal rate is higher (on incomes over $180,000, we pay 45% + 2.5% tax, soon to be 47% + 2.5% tax); our luxury cars are subject to a 33% tax (a Porsche 911 costs $260,000 here compared to $140,000 if we did a straight currency swap); and our spread of incomes is lower. I know for a fact from speaking to my friends in the States who are surgeons/lawyers that the top professionals in Australia get paid less - mid 6 figures instead of high 6 figures, high 6 figures instead of low 7 figures. These are the things we sacrifice for a nicer society. I'm not saying it's not a worthwhile sacrifice, but there's always a price to pay.
Those tax and wage rates insure that better safety net and... are you expecting some kinda of sympathy for the tax/price of luxury vehicles? LOL!
I'm all for someone being able to make as much damn money as possible but this is a discussion about a living wage. It's comical that you'd bring up someone only making $500,000 per year vs. $750,000 or only making $750,000 vs. $1,250,000 as a problem. Because, fuck, either way that is an obscene amount of money. You're arguing unnecessary income vs. unnecessary income. What a first world problem.
-
Whatever, mate. You have your financial guideposts, I have mine.
And my point is that someone else's "living wage" is my "tax impost". You can call my priorities comical and I can call your priorities misguided. It is what it is. And you might think something is 'obscene' whereas I - since I work with a lot of people who make the lower bounds of your figures - see it as just reward for a lot of talent, studying, and performance under stress which other people simply can't manage - otherwise they'd be earning the same.
And 'unnecessary' vs 'necessary' is always relative. Does someone need to buy a fancy X rather than a basic X? The question can be posed for everyone's purchases, but the difference is that some pay it out of their own pocket and some want others' largesse.
Every problem discussed on these forums is a first world problem, including the original thread problem of how to get by on $35k USD (+ subsidies) in a ridiculously high cost of living area.
-
And you might think something is 'obscene' whereas I - since I work with a lot of people who make the lower bounds of your figures - see it as just reward for a lot of talent, studying, and performance under stress which other people simply can't manage - otherwise they'd be earning the same.
#humblebrag But high five for exceptionalism.
I think part of the MMM premise is that the salaries you mentioned offer an obscene amount of money. And there are plenty of jobs that require a lot of talent, study and performance under stress that get paid significantly less than $500k/year. Yeah yeah I get it, but WTF is Dimon doing that would entitle him to $31m per year?
-
The problem that no one wants to say is that at its fundamental level, the employee in many situations does not provide even as much value as minimum wage.
If there were no minimum wage, there would be adequate labour supply to have people compete for jobs for less money than minimum wage most of the time. That lower value is the true, free market value of the labor for many of these positions. People taking those jobs would surely have tough lives.
Thankfully, we as a society have decided that its not acceptable to let people work for so little, and we have created minimum wage. In itself this is a form of welfare - paid for by all customers of whatever business it applies to.
I think this is a good thing, but it is a rule that we have imposed on business. If you want the business to go even further, we should mandate it because we cannot expect the business to do this willingly. If one business (ie a big publicly facing company who gets scrutinized) does, it puts itself at an inherent disadvantage to the local shop owner (which usually pays less than big box stores) who do not feel compelled to pay more.
I have harsh words for a post like this but I'll attempt to be tactful and say it's misguided, as you are basically arguing every non-revenue generating employee is not worth their expense to the organisation.
- What do you think happens if the mail clerk doesn't deliver internal documents for signing that are worth hundreds of millions of dollars?
- What do you think happens if an assistant doesn't manage their Executive's diary properly, and they end up wasting productive hours of their own time and that of their staff?
- What do you think happens if the cleaners don't manage the bathrooms efficiently, or wipe down and sanitise the kitchen benches in the lunchroom and the office catches a bacterial or gastric infection?
Every job has value beyond the obvious. Please stop with this nonsense that employees don't provide as much value as the minimum wage. It's wilful blindness to reality.
-
I am not a business owner. But I always thought that if I was one, I would try to subsidize childcare. I think it would be a win win. I go to a small beauty salon, which has 5 employees. 4 of the 5 are currently pregnant, due within 3 months of each other. Some of them are trying to trade off babysitting, taking off one day a week. The salon is large with a few extra rooms. Why can't the owner provide the space and everyone would chip in to pay the babysitter. As a business owner, you have the space available anyway, your employees could work one day extra a week, you'd have less call offs for babysitting issues, and it would be a good perk for hiring. Benefits are as important if not more important than minimum wage.
This is a great idea. I wish employers offered in house childcare as a benefit.
-
We, as a species, tend to only strive when we need to survive, when there are wants that aren't met.
I can see this tendency in myself. Now that I’m retired it’s difficult for me to motivate myself sometimes. Most of the time I have to be accountable to someone else (my spouse, a teacher, family and friends) in order to accomplish things. When I was working, survival (not losing my job), is what motivated me to bust my ass.
But do you think there are hardworking people who just can’t make it in the US because there’s just not enough jobs that pay a true living wage? What if its not just hard work and frugality but also a lot of luck that has made most of the people on this forum so successful?
We’re asking everyone to work hard, educate themselves, and move from minimum wage jobs to higher paying jobs, but are there enough higher paying jobs for everyone that wants them and are willing to work hard to be qualified for them?
-
The problem that no one wants to say is that at its fundamental level, the employee in many situations does not provide even as much value as minimum wage.
If there were no minimum wage, there would be adequate labour supply to have people compete for jobs for less money than minimum wage most of the time. That lower value is the true, free market value of the labor for many of these positions. People taking those jobs would surely have tough lives.
Thankfully, we as a society have decided that its not acceptable to let people work for so little, and we have created minimum wage. In itself this is a form of welfare - paid for by all customers of whatever business it applies to.
I think this is a good thing, but it is a rule that we have imposed on business. If you want the business to go even further, we should mandate it because we cannot expect the business to do this willingly. If one business (ie a big publicly facing company who gets scrutinized) does, it puts itself at an inherent disadvantage to the local shop owner (which usually pays less than big box stores) who do not feel compelled to pay more.
I have harsh words for a post like this but I'll attempt to be tactful and say it's misguided, as you are basically arguing every non-revenue generating employee is not worth their expense to the organisation.
- What do you think happens if the mail clerk doesn't deliver internal documents for signing that are worth hundreds of millions of dollars?
- What do you think happens if an assistant doesn't manage their Executive's diary properly, and they end up wasting productive hours of their own time and that of their staff?
- What do you think happens if the cleaners don't manage the bathrooms efficiently, or wipe down and sanitise the kitchen benches in the lunchroom and the office catches a bacterial or gastric infection?
Every job has value beyond the obvious. Please stop with this nonsense that employees don't provide as much value as the minimum wage. It's wilful blindness to reality.
I think the point of that post is that the marginal/replacement value of labour can be very low. For example, the jobs you listed (mail clerk, cleaners) probably ARE worth the minimum wage, and in fact often pay better. Executive assistants are well paid full stop, and so they should be. I think the point the other person was making is that some jobs don't even have that much value - their marginal/replacement value, esp in this era of tech and outsourcing, is very low.
-
I found this quote tonight and since we have a few Austrailians contributing to the thread , thought I'd include it.
A short perspective on American wages from another "1st world " country.
** Labor party leader Shorten, a former union organizer, said on Saturday he would reverse the decision by a tribunal to cut overtime pay in several low-paying industries within 100 days of the May 18 poll.
“Do we really want to go down the American path of workplace relations where a worker ... to make ends meet has to rely on tips and charity and the coins and dollar notes left on the table after the guest has gone?” Shorten told supporters in Melbourne.
“That is not the Australian way.”
In 2017, the Fair Work Commission ruled that reductions in the so-called penalty rates for weekends, public holidays and late night or morning shifts in retail, hospitality, fast-food and pharmacy would be phased in gradually by 2020. **
-
To give that quote some context, the pre-cut figure 2.0x loading for Sundays and now the new minimum is 1.5x loading for Sundays (not including shift work which retains a 1.75x loading).
The min wage is approx $18/hour and the min casual wage is that figure plus a 25% loading so approx $22.5/hour - most affected workers are casuals.
So min Sunday wage was previously $45/hour and now is about $35/hour - either way not exactly a pittance, and probably evocative of why so many low skill jobs are being replaced by automated screens. I can hire a talented law student to do legal research for me for $30/hour so the casual rates simply don't stack up.
-
Law students and clerks are pretty famous for being willing to work long hours for shitty pay. They do this because they have very real prospects of very well paid, permanent full-time jobs further down the track. Wait staff, on the other hand, are typically looking at 4-5hr shifts (after 5hr a meal break is mandatory, so many employers just offer 5hr shifts) which can be cancelled with two hours' notice, with no prospect of permanent full-time work in the future.
There's more to work than the hourly rate. There's the total hours worked, and the security and future career prospects of that job. This discussion is a great example of the divide in the Western world between waged and salaried workers. The salaried workers simply don't get that life on part-time casual work, whatever the hourly rate, is different to permanent full-time work.
-
I am unclear as to what exactly your argument is - it seems to be that any full time job should be able to support a single mother with a child, child care, a non-shared living situation and a car in a HCOL area but that doesn't seem reasonable to me.
My points are as follows:
1.) Our entire economy, top to bottom, needs re-examining. A good place to start is by looking at what responsibility employers have to pay wages that are commensurate with the cost of living, OR, we need to re-examine the efficacy of granting huge tax cuts to $100bn revenue companies, which further stresses the safety net.
2.) I think it's pretty out there how aggressively some posters think this hypothetical woman should pursue racing to the bottom even further when the man sitting at the table runs a bank that made $32 billion in net income last year.
1) Instead of trying to make employers pay people beyond the value they bring to the company, how about... I don't know... having people be responsible for their own financial situation?? Don't go live on your own if you can't afford it. Don't go buy a car if you can't afford it. Don't go start a family if you can't afford it. And let charity and government help the few that find themselves in trouble despite trying to do the right thing? People used to have some pride in being responsible for themselves instead of thinking that the struggling mom and pop store down the street should shell out $20/hour to the cashier because she can't keep her legs closed or insists on living in that nicer apartment etc.
2) I think it's pretty out there how some posters think things would be better if only the highest paid people didn't make so much money, or if companies weren't allowed to make a profit...
Sounds good to me. And while we are at it...How about employers and companies be responsible for their own financial situation? How about they not use roads paid for with taxes? How about they start their own utility companies? How about they start their own public schools and universities to train employees instead of relying on public servants to teach people how to read? End city and state corporate welfare and tax breaks that take money out of the pockets of taxpayers and put it directly into the hands of corporations? How about drug companies stop selling drugs developed in government labs? I'm sick of these freeloaders.
Sounds great. Let's stop taxing them at all while we're at it. And while we're at it, let's just make all things funded by those who use them, whether person or company, after all, you're sick of the freeloaders right??
We live in a society. No man is an island. I hate that fact as much as the next person, but it is still a fact. No person is completely in control of their fate, not CEOs and not single moms. CEOs benefit from having millions of non-starving people who make bad choices to work for scraps. Single moms benefit from a tiny social safety net to keep them from starving in the street. Neither of these things are possible without some degree of cooperation generally realized in the form of government, which is funded through taxes.
P.S. I would be a libertarian if I thought that the libertarian utopia wouldn't end in slavery for me, my family and every non-sociopath I have ever met. Yes, government is an oppressive force and takes taxes by force. It is better than the alternative. You aren't rich enough or blood thirsty enough to survive in a libertarian society.
-
The problem that no one wants to say is that at its fundamental level, the employee in many situations does not provide even as much value as minimum wage.
If there were no minimum wage, there would be adequate labour supply to have people compete for jobs for less money than minimum wage most of the time. That lower value is the true, free market value of the labor for many of these positions. People taking those jobs would surely have tough lives.
Thankfully, we as a society have decided that its not acceptable to let people work for so little, and we have created minimum wage. In itself this is a form of welfare - paid for by all customers of whatever business it applies to.
I think this is a good thing, but it is a rule that we have imposed on business. If you want the business to go even further, we should mandate it because we cannot expect the business to do this willingly. If one business (ie a big publicly facing company who gets scrutinized) does, it puts itself at an inherent disadvantage to the local shop owner (which usually pays less than big box stores) who do not feel compelled to pay more.
I have harsh words for a post like this but I'll attempt to be tactful and say it's misguided, as you are basically arguing every non-revenue generating employee is not worth their expense to the organisation.
- What do you think happens if the mail clerk doesn't deliver internal documents for signing that are worth hundreds of millions of dollars?
- What do you think happens if an assistant doesn't manage their Executive's diary properly, and they end up wasting productive hours of their own time and that of their staff?
- What do you think happens if the cleaners don't manage the bathrooms efficiently, or wipe down and sanitise the kitchen benches in the lunchroom and the office catches a bacterial or gastric infection?
Every job has value beyond the obvious. Please stop with this nonsense that employees don't provide as much value as the minimum wage. It's wilful blindness to reality.
Marty,
Value as I measure it is what people would pay for something willingly. If there were no minimum wage, many entry level positions would pay far less than they do currently because people would willingly work for less. A good example is when minimum wage recently went from $11.40 to $14.00 in Ontario. We can no longer pay less than $14.00, but people did, and surely were willingly working for less. I am not saying these people are not valuable, or that the jobs they do are not essential.
As for CEO's - people pay CEO's willingly - the government doesnt mandate it. I see no problem with people willingly paying someone a market rate.
-
Another example is Uber. I know that the nominal rate for Uber is 'decent', but when you factor in depreciation, operating expenses, fuel, self-insurance, tax obligations and down-time, the actual rate is sub-minimum wage. Yet people gladly do it, which shows that there is a lot of unused labor in the market which is happy to do supplemental work at a sub-min wage.
-
A very difficult part of having conversations like these, is that people often assume that government intervention on behalf of poor people (welfare, rent control, MW, etc.) are the only external forces acting on an otherwise free housing or labor market.
That's not the case at all. Anyone who lives in a "nice" neighborhood can tell you that there is a lot of big money interest behind pushing city council to zone for commercial or single family housing rather than lower cost multifamily housing. California is a big state. There's plenty of land available to house everyone if it's zoned and permitted the right way. Lots of private equity and foreign investment money doesn't want it that way though.
So there are two schools of thought here. One school of thought says that property and housing is there to serve the interest of capital ROI. It's their for private equity to juice returns for their partners, or perhaps it's there for Chinese investors to hedge against their domestic currency.
The other school of thought says that land and housing are there to shelter people who live, work, do commerce, and pay taxes in the community.
-
The problem that no one wants to say is that at its fundamental level, the employee in many situations does not provide even as much value as minimum wage.
If there were no minimum wage, there would be adequate labour supply to have people compete for jobs for less money than minimum wage most of the time. That lower value is the true, free market value of the labor for many of these positions. People taking those jobs would surely have tough lives.
Thankfully, we as a society have decided that its not acceptable to let people work for so little, and we have created minimum wage. In itself this is a form of welfare - paid for by all customers of whatever business it applies to.
I think this is a good thing, but it is a rule that we have imposed on business. If you want the business to go even further, we should mandate it because we cannot expect the business to do this willingly. If one business (ie a big publicly facing company who gets scrutinized) does, it puts itself at an inherent disadvantage to the local shop owner (which usually pays less than big box stores) who do not feel compelled to pay more.
I have harsh words for a post like this but I'll attempt to be tactful and say it's misguided, as you are basically arguing every non-revenue generating employee is not worth their expense to the organisation.
- What do you think happens if the mail clerk doesn't deliver internal documents for signing that are worth hundreds of millions of dollars?
- What do you think happens if an assistant doesn't manage their Executive's diary properly, and they end up wasting productive hours of their own time and that of their staff?
- What do you think happens if the cleaners don't manage the bathrooms efficiently, or wipe down and sanitise the kitchen benches in the lunchroom and the office catches a bacterial or gastric infection?
Every job has value beyond the obvious. Please stop with this nonsense that employees don't provide as much value as the minimum wage. It's wilful blindness to reality.
Marty,
Value as I measure it is what people would pay for something willingly. If there were no minimum wage, many entry level positions would pay far less than they do currently because people would willingly work for less. A good example is when minimum wage recently went from $11.40 to $14.00 in Ontario. We can no longer pay less than $14.00, but people did, and surely were willingly working for less. I am not saying these people are not valuable, or that the jobs they do are not essential.
As for CEO's - people pay CEO's willingly - the government doesnt mandate it. I see no problem with people willingly paying someone a market rate.
The problem with this argument is that it assumes that the markets for employment are economically "pure" at both top and bottom. Which is completely and utterly untrue: there are all sorts of issues skewing the employment market, social, political and legal. All the minimum wage is doing is mitigating some of the factors that skew wages low at the bottom end. There appears to be very little in the past 30 years (unlike previous times, and hopefully unlike future times) that has put any sort of brake on runaway executive pay levels.
-
There absolutely are jobs that are not worth minimum wage. You will be hard pressed to name many of them, though, because once companies find a way to eliminate them, they do. This is why you see less grocery baggers, and now cashiers at large stores in the US. It is an unintended consequence of artificially inflating minimum wage...low skilled workers are left with nothing to do.
-
When did we as a society decide that every job should pay enough to live on? Why cant there be jobs that are primarily taken by young people who merely need some extra money to suppliment other resources, like students who are still largely supported by parents or scholarships? Or perhaps jobs that are taken by second earners or retirees who also have other resources? Or jobs that no one ever expects to be held for years without advancement to higher positions? "Starter jobs" like internships?
The insistence that any job that might be held by someone who doesnt have other resources, or who has a child of their own, must now pay anyone who holds that job enough to fully support a decent lifestyle strikes me as borderline foolish. The predictable result is that those jobs will no longer be available to anyone, as they do not provide a value to the employer comensurate to the cost. Cheaper alternatives such as automation will be found or the job will simply disappear.
Mandated higher wages (at some point, esp if regional differences are not accounted for) will perhaps benefit those workers who actually have a job in this category, but there will be many more losers who wont have any job at all.
-
When did we as a society decide that every job should pay enough to live on? Why cant there be jobs that are primarily taken by young people who merely need some extra money to suppliment other resources, like students who are still largely supported by parents or scholarships? Or perhaps jobs that are taken by second earners or retirees who also have other resources? Or jobs that no one ever expects to be held for years without advancement to higher positions? "Starter jobs" like internships?
The insistence that any job that might be held by someone who doesnt have other resources, or who has a child of their own, must now pay anyone who holds that job enough to fully support a decent lifestyle strikes me as borderline foolish. The predictable result is that those jobs will no longer be available to anyone, as they do not provide a value to the employer comensurate to the cost. Cheaper alternatives such as automation will be found or the job will simply disappear.
Mandated higher wages (at some point, esp if regional differences are not accounted for) will perhaps benefit those workers who actually have a job in this category, but there will be many more losers who wont have any job at all.
Since the evaporation of low skill, high paying jobs at the hands of globalization and technology. And automation is coming no matter how low we keep wages. Trying to underbid the robots for labor is silly because they're just going to win in the end anyway.
Research on what effect minimum wages have on employment is actually pretty mixed. But there are other solutions. Expanding the EITC would have an effect similar to that of raising the MW, but without the punitive effect on small business. Strengthening the public health option would be nice too.
-
We, as a species, tend to only strive when we need to survive, when there are wants that aren't met.
I can see this tendency in myself. Now that I’m retired it’s difficult for me to motivate myself sometimes. Most of the time I have to be accountable to someone else (my spouse, a teacher, family and friends) in order to accomplish things. When I was working, survival (not losing my job), is what motivated me to bust my ass.
But do you think there are hardworking people who just can’t make it in the US because there’s just not enough jobs that pay a true living wage? What if its not just hard work and frugality but also a lot of luck that has made most of the people on this forum so successful?
We’re asking everyone to work hard, educate themselves, and move from minimum wage jobs to higher paying jobs, but are there enough higher paying jobs for everyone that wants them and are willing to work hard to be qualified for them?
I don't think that there's not enough higher paying jobs. If there were, the U.S. could completely close its border to immigration without negative consequences.
The rising cost of living in many urban areas is definitely a problem. I used to live in the Bay Area and a lot of the people in RVs were actually employed. Or else they used to be employed by the hardware manufacturing plants and when these companies shut down they were left without a job. These are localized problems that do not have simple solutions. That's why they're still problems. They can't be solved by something simple like raising the minimum wage a lot higher than it currently is or even zoning for more high density housing (you just get more luxury condos).
I don't think anyone who is successful can honestly say that there was absolutely zero luck involved in their success. Even the absence of terrible misfortune is a form of fortune. But isn't that the essence of life? The living ecosystem is not "fair", either in human society or the natural world. Our modern society actually does a lot to try to equalize this "unfairness," in the form of welfare and social safety nets. But surely anybody who has studied history should realize that any effort to eliminate all luck and make the world completely fair is a fool's undertaking?
-
A very difficult part of having conversations like these, is that people often assume that government intervention on behalf of poor people (welfare, rent control, MW, etc.) are the only external forces acting on an otherwise free housing or labor market.
That's not the case at all. Anyone who lives in a "nice" neighborhood can tell you that there is a lot of big money interest behind pushing city council to zone for commercial or single family housing rather than lower cost multifamily housing. California is a big state. There's plenty of land available to house everyone if it's zoned and permitted the right way. Lots of private equity and foreign investment money doesn't want it that way though.
So there are two schools of thought here. One school of thought says that property and housing is there to serve the interest of capital ROI. It's their for private equity to juice returns for their partners, or perhaps it's there for Chinese investors to hedge against their domestic currency.
The other school of thought says that land and housing are there to shelter people who live, work, do commerce, and pay taxes in the community.
I don't know, I live in Seattle and I think you'll find that a lot of the opposition to rezoning or development comes from the local homeowners. Nobody wants a big condo development in their quiet single family neighborhood. In fact, a developer recently bought a house down the street from me and plans to turn it into five townhouses (luxury high-end, not affordable housing). All the neighbors are banding together to try to fight it.
-
I don't know, I live in Seattle and I think you'll find that a lot of the opposition to rezoning or development comes from the local homeowners. Nobody wants a big condo development in their quiet single family neighborhood. In fact, a developer recently bought a house down the street from me and plans to turn it into five townhouses (luxury high-end, not affordable housing). All the neighbors are banding together to try to fight it.
While it is homeowners showing up to the council meetings, there's often larger orgs (or motivated and wealthy local businessmen/lawyers) doing the spearheading.
Either way though, this is a problem in it's own right. Presumably, these homeowners want workers making their coffee, prepping their food, and providing them teller service at banks. They just don't want to be neighbors with the people providing these services. Neighborhood to neighborhood, maybe this works within a city. It's okay to have low income neighborhoods and high income neighborhoods. I still have some issues with this model, but I'll table those for now.
But what people have been driving at in this thread, is that the entire greater Los Angeles area should be thought of as a high income neighborhood. I don't think that's sustainable.
-
There absolutely are jobs that are not worth minimum wage. You will be hard pressed to name many of them, though, because once companies find a way to eliminate them, they do. This is why you see less grocery baggers, and now cashiers at large stores in the US. It is an unintended consequence of artificially inflating minimum wage...low skilled workers are left with nothing to do.
It's minimum wage or even low skills, since even when large companies make record profits, they still fire lots of people, including some higher-skilled ones. It's just a mindset of short-term profits no matter what. It undermines companies in the long-term.
It's part of the inefficiency of large businesses. If you employ 10 people and fire 3 of them, it's immediately obvious that it'll hurt you in the long run. If you employ 10,000 people and fire 3,000 of them, your business is large enough to have some resilience against your stupidity. It'll hurt the company down the track, of course, since if nothing else it hurts the public image. For example, when the auto industry closed down in Australia, Ford and GM simply closed the doors one day and tried to evade paying people's entitlements; Toyota gave everyone three years notice and had programmes trying to bridge them into other work, and offered them large bonuses if they stayed until closing time. After the close-down, Ford and GM sales tanked, while Toyota's kept up.
But hey, in firing 3,000 people you cut costs by $300 million this year, so you get a $3 million bonus, and that's what's important, right?
When did we as a society decide that every job should pay enough to live on?
In Australia, it was in 1905 when a federal law was passed ("fair and reasonable" wages for your workers, or else pay a tariff) and then in 1907 with the Harvester decision. I am sorry for the US that it is behind other countries in this respect. I suggest you write to your congressperson.
I don't think anyone who is successful can honestly say that there was absolutely zero luck involved in their success.
More important than luck is all the people who helped them. A while back there was an article in the paper about a young guy who'd decided not to go to university, and go straight to writing apps, he'd recently sold one for $65,000 and was very proud, saying, "My parents gave me nothing, I did it all myself." He was a graduate of Geelong Grammar with fees of $40,000 annually, and was still living rent-free in his parents' house in South Yarra (median house price $1.5 million), and his father worked in software, too, so no doubt had introduced him to the right people. But the story he told was he'd done it all on his own.
Well, I guess we are all the heroes of our own story. And that sort of self myth-making is probably necessary if you want to be able to say there should be no minimum wage or social welfare net. "I did it all by myself, so can they!"
-
We, as a species, tend to only strive when we need to survive, when there are wants that aren't met.
I can see this tendency in myself. Now that I’m retired it’s difficult for me to motivate myself sometimes. Most of the time I have to be accountable to someone else (my spouse, a teacher, family and friends) in order to accomplish things. When I was working, survival (not losing my job), is what motivated me to bust my ass.
But do you think there are hardworking people who just can’t make it in the US because there’s just not enough jobs that pay a true living wage? What if its not just hard work and frugality but also a lot of luck that has made most of the people on this forum so successful?
We’re asking everyone to work hard, educate themselves, and move from minimum wage jobs to higher paying jobs, but are there enough higher paying jobs for everyone that wants them and are willing to work hard to be qualified for them?
The right wing mindset refuses to have an honest intellectual reckoning with itself. No one completely bootstraps anything. I'm a dentist and when I have conversations with rural white conservatives who make 5 time less than me they are shocked that my political concerns are for the lower socioeconomic Americans and they say things like "you had to work hard to be a dentist and you should get a lot more than people who aren't." What they fail to even consider is that my grandfather was a dentist and my father is a lawyer. They made a lot more money than the average person, they greatly encouraged education, I inherited better than average intelligence, I had 4 years of college paid for by my parents, etc,etc. Without those things I would most likely be working for $15 per hour like the typical high school graduate. There are lazy people who do nothing and expect to be taken care of but the VAST majority of people who are working class work as hard or harder than the upper middle/upper class but came from a different background. Through a vast expansion of the EITC we should immediately switch to a system where every American who is willing to work should be fully middle class.
-
[
When did we as a society decide that every job should pay enough to live on?
In Australia, it was in 1905 when a federal law was passed ("fair and reasonable" wages for your workers, or else pay a tariff) and then in 1907 with the Harvester decision. I am sorry for the US that it is behind other countries in this respect. I suggest you write to your congressperson.
But I don't believe that every job should provide a livable wage. I think that's silly. I think there should be - that there are - jobs of convenience that are not important enough to the job provider to be worth that much. And if we insist that every job should pay enough to live on, that those small jobs will simply disappear. And that's an opportunity lost to someone somewhere who could have benefited by taking the job and making a little extra money.
I think the problems of automation and offshoring has to be dealt with by some other means. If we eliminate all the small jobs that can at least help someone get by then we make the rest of the problem harder to solve.
-
[
When did we as a society decide that every job should pay enough to live on?
In Australia, it was in 1905 when a federal law was passed ("fair and reasonable" wages for your workers, or else pay a tariff) and then in 1907 with the Harvester decision. I am sorry for the US that it is behind other countries in this respect. I suggest you write to your congressperson.
But I don't believe that every job should provide a livable wage. I think that's silly. I think there should be - that there are - jobs of convenience that are not important enough to the job provider to be worth that much. And if we insist that every job should pay enough to live on, that those small jobs will simply disappear. And that's an opportunity lost to someone somewhere who could have benefited by taking the job and making a little extra money.
I think the problems of automation and offshoring has to be dealt with by some other means. If we eliminate all the small jobs that can at least help someone get by then we make the rest of the problem harder to solve.
This is the argument that for decades was used to pay women less than men: the man of the household brings in the "living wage", why do women need more than pin money?
I don't know where you are getting your ideas from, but you are spouting the businessman's rhetoric from the nineteenth century. Ideas have moved on from then, and you would do well to study some of them.
-
I also disagree that employers should be responsible for paying a hard to define living wage or health benefits. (Reasonable) Medicare-for-all and UBI are the answers here. Especially for smaller employers, dipping into employees' personal lives to comply with arbitrary living standards is overly burdensome. Society can simplify these problems for everyone by taking them off the backs of employers.
My company has ~135 employees. We've had 2 cancer cases in the past 2 years. Our group rate has gone up 50% in those two years because cost of claims far outpaced premiums. The spread of risk to maintain health benefits doesn't work on the employer level. In kind, a company can't possibly be able to manage all the possible and potential choices and circumstances of its employees personal lives to be responsible for a living wage. Employment should be an exchange of value. UBI benefits the working, disabled, and impoverished; a "living wage" doesn't.
-
I also disagree that employers should be responsible for paying a hard to define living wage or health benefits. (Reasonable) Medicare-for-all and UBI are the answers here. Especially for smaller employers, dipping into employees' personal lives to comply with arbitrary living standards is overly burdensome. Society can simplify these problems for everyone by taking them off the backs of employers.
My company has ~135 employees. We've had 2 cancer cases in the past 2 years. Our group rate has gone up 50% in those two years because cost of claims far outpaced premiums. The spread of risk to maintain health benefits doesn't work on the employer level. In kind, a company can't possibly be able to manage all the possible and potential choices and circumstances of its employees personal lives to determine an adequate living wage. The government can't either. UBI benefits the working, disabled, and impoverished. The "living wage" doesn't.
Mostly agree. I think "living wage" conversations are a great way to ease people into MFA and UBI conversations.
-
To give that quote some context, the pre-cut figure 2.0x loading for Sundays and now the new minimum is 1.5x loading for Sundays (not including shift work which retains a 1.75x loading).
The min wage is approx $18/hour and the min casual wage is that figure plus a 25% loading so approx $22.5/hour - most affected workers are casuals.
So min Sunday wage was previously $45/hour and now is about $35/hour - either way not exactly a pittance, and probably evocative of why so many low skill jobs are being replaced by automated screens. I can hire a talented law student to do legal research for me for $30/hour so the casual rates simply don't stack up.
That's happening here in the US as well and our minimum wage is $7.25/hr.
-
That's happening here in the US as well and our minimum wage is $7.25/hr.
Yep. Machines are improving faster than humans can improve. Eventually all jobs will be automated. Really, this is a good thing. Scanning items and cashiering is menial and boring work. If a machine is doing it, it frees up a lot of man hours for humans to pursue something better. Problem is, that "something better" won't be a better job one day, since the machines will be doing that better job too.
-
Breaking news: CEO of major company makes more money than employee with a high school degree with a low skill job.
What most people don't realize is that is a companies are forced to pay what you arbitrarily determined to be a living wage, they will simply not hire the person you are trying to help. The person making minimum wage is better off with the minimum wage job than unemployed.
-
Breaking news: CEO of major company makes more money than employee with a high school degree with a low skill job.
What most people don't realize is that is a companies are forced to pay what you arbitrarily determined to be a living wage, they will simply not hire the person you are trying to help. The person making minimum wage is better off with the minimum wage job than unemployed.
History has not actually borne that out. History has borne out that without a minimum wage, most employers will go as low as they can, no matter the effect on the workers.
-
But I don't believe that every job should provide a livable wage. I think that's silly. I think there should be - that there are - jobs of convenience that are not important enough to the job provider to be worth that much. And if we insist that every job should pay enough to live on, that those small jobs will simply disappear.
They haven't in Australia, simply because jobs can be part-time, and people who are self-employed are not obliged to pay themselves any particular rate. If I want to charge someone $1 to wash his car, I can. In practice, the minimum wage acts as a sort of benchmark for the self-employed. I have a guy come every 3 months and wash our windows and mirrors, he comes with his wife, it takes them an hour, plus travel, plus cleaning gear, etc.
Americans tend to wail and moan about the idea of a decent minimum wage and social welfare net, and proclaim loudly that putting it in place in the US would lead to economic collapse and social chaos. But it has not done so in other countries. In fact, Australia has a lower unemployment rate than the US, and stronger and steadier economic growth, with no recession for a quarter-century.
Obviously, change must be gradual. Immediately doubling minimum wage would of course destroy businesses. But raising it over 10 years or so wouldn't. Likewise any other change people think good, like a better unemployment benefit, or a UBI, or a carbon tax, or whatever. Business adapts to change, it's just sudden change that hurts.
You are not unique and special snowflakes, sorry. You'd be fine.
-
But I don't believe that every job should provide a livable wage. I think that's silly. I think there should be - that there are - jobs of convenience that are not important enough to the job provider to be worth that much. And if we insist that every job should pay enough to live on, that those small jobs will simply disappear.
They haven't in Australia, simply because jobs can be part-time, and people who are self-employed are not obliged to pay themselves any particular rate. If I want to charge someone $1 to wash his car, I can. In practice, the minimum wage acts as a sort of benchmark for the self-employed. I have a guy come every 3 months and wash our windows and mirrors, he comes with his wife, it takes them an hour, plus travel, plus cleaning gear, etc.
Americans tend to wail and moan about the idea of a decent minimum wage and social welfare net, and proclaim loudly that putting it in place in the US would lead to economic collapse and social chaos. But it has not done so in other countries. In fact, Australia has a lower unemployment rate than the US, and stronger and steadier economic growth, with no recession for a quarter-century.
Obviously, change must be gradual. Immediately doubling minimum wage would of course destroy businesses. But raising it over 10 years or so wouldn't. Likewise any other change people think good, like a better unemployment benefit, or a UBI, or a carbon tax, or whatever. Business adapts to change, it's just sudden change that hurts.
You are not unique and special snowflakes, sorry. You'd be fine.
but but but but...
'merica
-
[
When did we as a society decide that every job should pay enough to live on?
In Australia, it was in 1905 when a federal law was passed ("fair and reasonable" wages for your workers, or else pay a tariff) and then in 1907 with the Harvester decision. I am sorry for the US that it is behind other countries in this respect. I suggest you write to your congressperson.
But I don't believe that every job should provide a livable wage. I think that's silly. I think there should be - that there are - jobs of convenience that are not important enough to the job provider to be worth that much. And if we insist that every job should pay enough to live on, that those small jobs will simply disappear. And that's an opportunity lost to someone somewhere who could have benefited by taking the job and making a little extra money.
I think the problems of automation and offshoring has to be dealt with by some other means. If we eliminate all the small jobs that can at least help someone get by then we make the rest of the problem harder to solve.
This is the argument that for decades was used to pay women less than men: the man of the household brings in the "living wage", why do women need more than pin money?
I don't know where you are getting your ideas from, but you are spouting the businessman's rhetoric from the nineteenth century. Ideas have moved on from then, and you would do well to study some of them.
"Job A doesn't provide enough value to be worth the amount needed to provide a "living wage" to a family of 3" is absolutely nothing like "we shouldn't have to pay women decent money because their spouse makes a good amount of money". The arguments aren't even related and I can't see how anyone could possibly think they're the same.
A person should be paid what they earn, or what they and their employer agree upon for their wages. No more, no less.
-
But I don't believe that every job should provide a livable wage. I think that's silly. I think there should be - that there are - jobs of convenience that are not important enough to the job provider to be worth that much. And if we insist that every job should pay enough to live on, that those small jobs will simply disappear.
They haven't in Australia, simply because jobs can be part-time, and people who are self-employed are not obliged to pay themselves any particular rate. If I want to charge someone $1 to wash his car, I can. In practice, the minimum wage acts as a sort of benchmark for the self-employed. I have a guy come every 3 months and wash our windows and mirrors, he comes with his wife, it takes them an hour, plus travel, plus cleaning gear, etc.
Americans tend to wail and moan about the idea of a decent minimum wage and social welfare net, and proclaim loudly that putting it in place in the US would lead to economic collapse and social chaos. But it has not done so in other countries. In fact, Australia has a lower unemployment rate than the US, and stronger and steadier economic growth, with no recession for a quarter-century.
Obviously, change must be gradual. Immediately doubling minimum wage would of course destroy businesses. But raising it over 10 years or so wouldn't. Likewise any other change people think good, like a better unemployment benefit, or a UBI, or a carbon tax, or whatever. Business adapts to change, it's just sudden change that hurts.
You are not unique and special snowflakes, sorry. You'd be fine.
but but but but...
'merica
I'm not overly familiar with Australia's income requirements system, so I went online and found out that the minimum wage for a 16 year old fast food cook is the equivalent of $7.38 USD/hour. On par with the US minimum wage and lower than the minimum wage in many US states... so much for the system of giving living wages to everyone over there... lol
(calculated here https://calculate.fairwork.gov.au/)
-
[
When did we as a society decide that every job should pay enough to live on?
In Australia, it was in 1905 when a federal law was passed ("fair and reasonable" wages for your workers, or else pay a tariff) and then in 1907 with the Harvester decision. I am sorry for the US that it is behind other countries in this respect. I suggest you write to your congressperson.
But I don't believe that every job should provide a livable wage. I think that's silly. I think there should be - that there are - jobs of convenience that are not important enough to the job provider to be worth that much. And if we insist that every job should pay enough to live on, that those small jobs will simply disappear. And that's an opportunity lost to someone somewhere who could have benefited by taking the job and making a little extra money.
I think the problems of automation and offshoring has to be dealt with by some other means. If we eliminate all the small jobs that can at least help someone get by then we make the rest of the problem harder to solve.
This is the argument that for decades was used to pay women less than men: the man of the household brings in the "living wage", why do women need more than pin money?
I don't know where you are getting your ideas from, but you are spouting the businessman's rhetoric from the nineteenth century. Ideas have moved on from then, and you would do well to study some of them.
"Job A doesn't provide enough value to be worth the amount needed to provide a "living wage" to a family of 3" is absolutely nothing like "we shouldn't have to pay women decent money because their spouse makes a good amount of money". The arguments aren't even related and I can't see how anyone could possibly think they're the same.
Unfortunately the argument was used for decades to argue against women having equal pay with men. Your disbelief in this does not negate the history.
A person should be paid what they earn, or what they and their employer agree upon for their wages. No more, no less.
As I've pointed out before, the world is not this perfect. Exploitation and discrimination are rife, and a minimum wage protects the vulnerable and underprivileged from the sharks and the overprivileged. It's the price of living in a civilised society.
-
Of course everyone is born with different opportunities in life. It's much easier for some people to do well in life than others. That's the nature of the world. It's how evolution works. If nature did not reward being born with certain advantageous traits, whether in you or your parents, the human race wouldn't exist (unless you're a creationist).
Having no social safety nets led to revolutions, so most governments now try to make sure that there are systems in place to help those born in less advantageous situations. If you want to argue that the U.S. does not have enough of them, fine. There's probably room for improvement, not the least in cutting out the inefficiencies. If you believe that we should do everything we can to make sure that everyone has the exact same opportunities in life, that's just ridiculous.
Here's an example of success that a friend just told me about. A young man in her company recently got promoted to principal engineer. Very bright, motivated guy. He was born into poverty and went to a "bad" public school. He got all school fees and stuff waived throughout his education (even public schools ask for money from parents for school supplies, field trips, school teams, some California schools even ask parents to buy laptops or iPads). He also got waivers for college application fees. He applied to four UC schools and got into three of them, chose UCLA. His first day in programming class the prof immediately assigned a project and all the other kids already knew what to do. He had never taken any AP's or programming courses and had no clue what was going on. He pulled many all-nighters to catch up to his peers. And now he is a principal engineer in his twenties.
Yes, it is definitely harder to make it if you are poor. But there are support systems in place, like free education, transportation, etc. For the willing and motivated, it is definitely possible.
Oh, and the minimum wage in WA is $12/hr. In neighboring British Columbia it is $12.56 CDN.
-
I suppose it comes down to how much empathy you have for those who, through birth or circumstance, do not have, or have lost, the skills that it now takes to be competitive in this society.
In the olden days either a good brain or a good body would get you good pay. Now, for the most part, it is tending towards only the former. How much do we care about the plight of the less brainy in society?
You can talk about 'privilege' all you want but a lot of it comes down to ability and intelligence, and it's fair to say those are unequally spread.
There is a range of views - some prefer much more equality, some prefer social Darwinism, many are somewhere in-between.
-
Abigail Disney speaks out against Disney CEO "insane" $65M compensation:
-
I suppose it comes down to how much empathy you have for those who, through birth or circumstance, do not have, or have lost, the skills that it now takes to be competitive in this society.
In the olden days either a good brain or a good body would get you good pay. Now, for the most part, it is tending towards only the former. How much do we care about the plight of the less brainy in society?
You can talk about 'privilege' all you want but a lot of it comes down to ability and intelligence, and it's fair to say those are unequally spread.
There is a range of views - some prefer much more equality, some prefer social Darwinism, many are somewhere in-between.
To be fair, just because someone is opposed to a generic minimum wage hike does not necessarily mean that they are uncaring. We can agree that there is a problem and that some people need help without agreeing on a specific solution. I happen to believe that a significant hike in the minimum wage would do more harm than good.
-
Norway does not (acutally contrarty to what many Norwegians believe) have a minium wage and we haven't had it for ages (if ever, not quite sure). Despite that, any "low-pay" - job here pays way more than it would in the US. The Norwegian labour market is, however, quite heavy unionized and pretty much all employer follows the results of collective bargains striked between the labour unions and the business unions. There is basically noone, especailly not the unions, who want a minimum wage to be introduced.
The fundamental problem for a labour market like the US isn't the level of or presence of a minimum wage, but the lack of significant collective bargaining power from the employees. For the middle class and below, US real wages peaked in the 70's or therabouts. That's pretty much all you need to know and to judge if a system "works" or not.
The US is also one of very few places where a large proportion of the population can expect to make less than their parents in real terms.
-
Breaking news: CEO of major company makes more money than employee with a high school degree with a low skill job.
What most people don't realize is that is a companies are forced to pay what you arbitrarily determined to be a living wage, they will simply not hire the person you are trying to help. The person making minimum wage is better off with the minimum wage job than unemployed.
There's more breaking news, like a CEO earning more than 1000 of his employees.
Or like 10 mans in the world having as much money as 3 billions of persons.
As probably the richest country in the world, USA could have "everyone" living well, but it seems theres no problem with this huge gaps.
I live in Europe, and as you may know, here the support from the companies and government is higher. The richer, even they dont like it, pay more taxes so the poorer can achieve at least a fair life.
Yes, each time the minimum wage or the taxes raise, there's the shadow that every company will go away, but they remain.
For me its a better approach, including for the future, where machines and ultra-capitalism can turn any of us in a employee earning 7 dollars. If any of us were in that situation, maybe our opinion would be different.
Is there any worst work related issue than working full time and not having enough to live?
Just my 2 cents.
-
I guess it's a choice between having higher wages for the privileged few versus having somewhat lower wages for them but better liveability for all the rest of the people in society. Different societies have a different view on which point in the continuum to aim for.
-
I guess it's a choice between having higher wages for the privileged few versus having somewhat lower wages for them but better liveability for all the rest of the people in society. Different societies have a different view on which point in the continuum to aim for.
Yes, that's it.
My vision is to have liveability for all. Sweden, Finland, Danmark, Austria, for example, are top of the society for me. They dont have anyone in the top 20 of the richest mens in the world, but they almost dont have poverty.
Having 15 of the 20 richest mens in the world in one side and 50000000 persons on poverty on the same country dont seems good for me.
Theres the old "they worked for it". But does really anyone works 1000 more than an employee? Does anyone really values 131 billions?
I value american capitalism and work ethic, but the inequality reached too far and people are suffering with that. And with this approach it will get worst: big groups will get bigger, AI will come strongly, Asia is getting huge, a new economic world crisis will come sooner or later...
-
I guess it's a choice between having higher wages for the privileged few versus having somewhat lower wages for them but better liveability for all the rest of the people in society. Different societies have a different view on which point in the continuum to aim for.
Yes, that's it.
My vision is to have liveability for all. Sweden, Finland, Danmark, Austria, for example, are top of the society for me. They dont have anyone in the top 20 of the richest mens in the world, but they almost dont have poverty.
Having 15 of the 20 richest mens in the world in one side and 50000000 persons on poverty on the same country dont seems good for me.
Theres the old "they worked for it". But does really anyone works 1000 more than an employee? Does anyone really values 131 billions?
I value american capitalism and work ethic, but the inequality reached too far and people are suffering with that. And with this approach it will get worst: big groups will get bigger, AI will come strongly, Asia is getting huge, a new economic world crisis will come sooner or later...
I mean, all of the Nordic countries do well, don't get me wrong, but I would never want to live there.
There is lots of talk about (marginally) higher median incomes and low-inequality, but if you are in the top 3/4 of the US or Canada, you are way better off to be honest.
The cost of living compared to income is insane in all of those countries.
Many of them (especially norway) are incredibly dependant on oil/gas and natural resource exporting which will all be vulnerable for a long time.
The US has some issues with wage discrepancy, and it does have a problem with a percentage of people falling through the cracks, but for the vast majority (not just the richest 15-20 people) I think the numbers would easily bear out that the standard of living is much higher in the US, and there is a much more diversified resilient economy positioned much better for the future.
-
I guess it's a choice between having higher wages for the privileged few versus having somewhat lower wages for them but better liveability for all the rest of the people in society. Different societies have a different view on which point in the continuum to aim for.
Yes, that's it.
My vision is to have liveability for all. Sweden, Finland, Danmark, Austria, for example, are top of the society for me. They dont have anyone in the top 20 of the richest mens in the world, but they almost dont have poverty.
Having 15 of the 20 richest mens in the world in one side and 50000000 persons on poverty on the same country dont seems good for me.
Theres the old "they worked for it". But does really anyone works 1000 more than an employee? Does anyone really values 131 billions?
I value american capitalism and work ethic, but the inequality reached too far and people are suffering with that. And with this approach it will get worst: big groups will get bigger, AI will come strongly, Asia is getting huge, a new economic world crisis will come sooner or later...
I mean, all of the Nordic countries do well, don't get me wrong, but I would never want to live there.
There is lots of talk about (marginally) higher median incomes and low-inequality, but if you are in the top 3/4 of the US or Canada, you are way better off to be honest.
The cost of living compared to income is insane in all of those countries.
Many of them (especially norway) are incredibly dependant on oil/gas and natural resource exporting which will all be vulnerable for a long time.
The US has some issues with wage discrepancy, and it does have a problem with a percentage of people falling through the cracks, but for the vast majority (not just the richest 15-20 people) I think the numbers would easily bear out that the standard of living is much higher in the US, and there is a much more diversified resilient economy positioned much better for the future.
The Nordics is not the right place for everyone, and life here is not perfect. I'm a big fan of our wealth tax (and other taxes), but fully understand that it is a valid argument for not moving here. So is the cold, darkness, and introvert society. But I'm struggling to understand a few of your points:
1) As far as I know, only Norway (oil and fish) and the Faroes (fish) are dependent on exporting natural resources (and there are some aspects of the culture in those two countries that makes the story a bit more complex, including a big fund of FU money, high education rates, ingrained traditions for frugality, and high mobility within the Nordics). Or do you know something about Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, Finland, Åland or Greenland that I don't?
2) Standard of living being higher in the US: Yes, our highest wages are lower, and cost of living is high, especially for unhealthy stuff like alcohol, tobacco and sugar. But the fish in the sea and the berries in the forest are free, and I don't have to splurge on organic meat since all our cows have a right to soft beds and summer holidays. The environment is (mostly) clean, and I can walk whereever I want without being afraid for my safety. If I moved to the US, I can't imagine feeling my standard of living had improved because I got access to cheaper alcohol? Or is there something else I'm missing? I think I've heard foreigners complaining about nail salongs being very expensive here, along with similar "luxuries". Maybe it is my socialist upbringing (no sarcasm: walked my first Workers' Day parade at age 1) that makes me not include those types of things in my personal definition of standard of living.
I'm sure there are valid arguments on why standard of living would be better in the US, but my gut reaction to this statement is unfortunately colored by the report by the Trump administration from last year, that used the price of pickup trucks as a measurement of living standard: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-29/trump-experts-decrying-nordic-socialism-trigger-angry-response This article in english says a bit about how the report was received in Denmark https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-29/trump-experts-decrying-nordic-socialism-trigger-angry-response, while this fact check (in Norwegian) goes more in detail: https://www.nrk.no/norge/det-hvite-hus-bommet-med-rapport-om-nordisk-levestandard-1.14302603
I guess it always comes back to politics and ideology. My quality of life is better when I live in a country where I pay a lot of taxes but don't have to worry about the cost of education or healthcare. A clean environment is important for me, so I think it is perfectly fine to have more than 100 % taxes on gas guzzling pickup trucks (would have preferred to ban them outright, but babysteps...). I think it is better for my society if less people smoke or drink, and fully support massive taxes on unhealthy stuff to make back some of the cost for healthcare. And I think pedicures, manicures, spas, and other types of "luxury" things are completely stupid and hate "being pampered", so I couldn't care less if it costs a lot to get those types of services (especially since the high cost is due to decent wages).
On the other hand, if freedom to control your own money is more important to you, the Nordic model simply isn't your cup of tea. And that is fine. But is that the case for 3/4 of people in the US and Canada?
-
Gaja,
My comments were largely based upon financial considerations.
http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/income/
Please note these are averages, as median income for Norway is very hard to come by from my (brief) google searches. Please feel free to send some info if you find it.
In terms of income, the cost of living would further skew the numbers against norway. The financial net worth figures speak for themselves (which should be important when arguing on a site dedicated largely to financial independence).
All of these averages are achieved with lower labour force participation rates in the US/Canada as well. A lower rate is arguably a mark of a more affluent society when less people need to be working.
Furthermore my comment was also clearly qualified by stating that the top 75% (the exact percentage being an estimate - but my intent was to specify a significant majority) would be better off in a less socialized area. You will get no arguments from me that many less advantaged members of society are worse off in the US/Canada; but if we looked only at the top 75% the numbers would be MUCH further sku'd towards more capitalistic societies.
In terms of crime statistics - no contest - the US has problems. I concur this is partially a byproduct of income inequality, but probably moreso historical injustices to racial minorities.
In terms of environment - Im not really sure tbh... The same site I listed does give an edge to Norway in terms of air quality and self-reported quality of water... but I would be suprised if Norway has such a great environmental record when its so dependant on oil/gas/ocean exploitation.
-
I have no doubt that it's easier to survive and thrive in the U.S. if you are intelligent and driven. As I posted upthread, the top professionals like (senior) lawyers, surgeons, bankers and dentists earn a lot more on average in the U.S. than in Canada/Australia/UK, pay less in income tax, and pay less for most expenses - there is a reason why when you look at PPP, most countries are more expensive in the U.S.
Caring for the poor/less capable, and giving higher minimum wage jobs to those of low skill, costs money at the top end.
-
In another thread, a poster is talking about someone in her old neighborhood in the US building a 7 bedroom, 7 bathroom house. I think we can all agree that unless you have 14 kids, this is truly unnecessary, environmentally terrible and does add to anyone's happiness. Same with the majority of large pickup trucks sold in the US. This being MMM, I think we all agree that this kind of consumption does not add to your 'quality of life' (rather all that debt leads to stress and misery) and this kind of excessive consumption is a lot of what you have in the US that you don't have in places like Scandinavia. I don't think anyone is going hungry, without healthcare or living on the streets in Scandinavia but no one (or almost no one) is living in a 7 bathroom house either.
-
In another thread, a poster is talking about someone in her old neighborhood in the US building a 7 bedroom, 7 bathroom house. I think we can all agree that unless you have 14 kids, this is truly unnecessary, environmentally terrible and does add to anyone's happiness. Same with the majority of large pickup trucks sold in the US. This being MMM, I think we all agree that this kind of consumption does not add to your 'quality of life' (rather all that debt leads to stress and misery) and this kind of excessive consumption is a lot of what you have in the US that you don't have in places like Scandinavia. I don't think anyone is going hungry, without healthcare or living on the streets in Scandinavia but no one (or almost no one) is living in a 7 bathroom house either.
If nothing else, the owner of said 7 bedroom McMansion is providing jobs to the local construction industry.
Trickle down economics and all that etc...
-
In another thread, a poster is talking about someone in her old neighborhood in the US building a 7 bedroom, 7 bathroom house. I think we can all agree that unless you have 14 kids, this is truly unnecessary, environmentally terrible and does add to anyone's happiness. Same with the majority of large pickup trucks sold in the US. This being MMM, I think we all agree that this kind of consumption does not add to your 'quality of life' (rather all that debt leads to stress and misery) and this kind of excessive consumption is a lot of what you have in the US that you don't have in places like Scandinavia. I don't think anyone is going hungry, without healthcare or living on the streets in Scandinavia but no one (or almost no one) is living in a 7 bathroom house either.
I don't agree with this. One of my hobbies is collecting sports cars and I plan to retire by 45 with a really nice sports car collection (by really nice, I mean, low-ish 6 figures nice). No one needs this sort of consumption, but neither does anyone need a really expensive violin, painting, watch or holiday house. But one person's 'stress and misery' is another person's 'fun goal'. So I'm not sure that I agree that we should be putting caps on consumption. Hell, some people probably spend as much over their life in alcohol as what I do on my cars - everyone has their vice - let them be, says I.
-
In another thread, a poster is talking about someone in her old neighborhood in the US building a 7 bedroom, 7 bathroom house. I think we can all agree that unless you have 14 kids, this is truly unnecessary, environmentally terrible and does add to anyone's happiness. Same with the majority of large pickup trucks sold in the US. This being MMM, I think we all agree that this kind of consumption does not add to your 'quality of life' (rather all that debt leads to stress and misery) and this kind of excessive consumption is a lot of what you have in the US that you don't have in places like Scandinavia. I don't think anyone is going hungry, without healthcare or living on the streets in Scandinavia but no one (or almost no one) is living in a 7 bathroom house either.
I don't agree with this. One of my hobbies is collecting sports cars and I plan to retire by 45 with a really nice sports car collection (by really nice, I mean, low-ish 6 figures nice). No one needs this sort of consumption, but neither does anyone need a really expensive violin, painting, watch or holiday house. But one person's 'stress and misery' is another person's 'fun goal'. So I'm not sure that I agree that we should be putting caps on consumption. Hell, some people probably spend as much over their life in alcohol as what I do on my cars - everyone has their vice - let them be, says I.
It's not putting a cap on consumption, it's internalising the external costs through taxation.
-
Bloop bloop - no one is talking about putting a cap on consumption. I'm talking about wealthy people paying higher taxes than they do in the US - just like in Scandinavia and Australia. Maybe it will be harder for wealthy people to buy a 7 bathroom house in this system but it will also be a more pleasant society generally. For context, in the city I grew up in in the US, there are children living on the streets more or less next door to the wealthiest people on earth. People die because they can't afford insulin and go bankrupt because they have cancer. Cutting down slightly on conspicuous consumption through higher taxation on the super rich to alleviate these problems is only just IMO.
-
Thanks for the clarification. I have no issues with higher taxation than in the U.S. currently.
The U.S. Gini is in the low .40's; Australia's and Canada's are in the very low .30's and I believe the Nordic countries are a bit lower again. I think an ideal Gini is probably 0.35, and the only way for the US to get there is by hiking taxes on either income or wealth - which I support (to that extent).
-
Gaja,
My comments were largely based upon financial considerations.
http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/income/
Please note these are averages, as median income for Norway is very hard to come by from my (brief) google searches. Please feel free to send some info if you find it.
In terms of income, the cost of living would further skew the numbers against norway. The financial net worth figures speak for themselves (which should be important when arguing on a site dedicated largely to financial independence).
All of these averages are achieved with lower labour force participation rates in the US/Canada as well. A lower rate is arguably a mark of a more affluent society when less people need to be working.
Furthermore my comment was also clearly qualified by stating that the top 75% (the exact percentage being an estimate - but my intent was to specify a significant majority) would be better off in a less socialized area. You will get no arguments from me that many less advantaged members of society are worse off in the US/Canada; but if we looked only at the top 75% the numbers would be MUCH further sku'd towards more capitalistic societies.
In terms of crime statistics - no contest - the US has problems. I concur this is partially a byproduct of income inequality, but probably moreso historical injustices to racial minorities.
In terms of environment - Im not really sure tbh... The same site I listed does give an edge to Norway in terms of air quality and self-reported quality of water... but I would be suprised if Norway has such a great environmental record when its so dependant on oil/gas/ocean exploitation.
I think we see the world very differently. In my mind, money is a side aspect of the MMM philosophy. In my mind, it is mainly about freedom. Living in Norway, cost of living and taxes increase my FIRE number, while healthcare costs and cost of education for my kids reduces it. Also, due to the safety net, my FU number is very low. Thanks for the link to the OECD index. It has an interesting front page, where it is possible to adjust the different parameters: http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/#/11111111111
1) Median income is easy to find on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income. Here are some more details: https://www.ssb.no/en/ifhus/
2) Fascinating that you see lower employment rates as a positive thing. Here, the labour party ruled most of the time since WW2 under the slogan "Jobs for everyone". I learned in school that when more people (especially women) stay at home, it is a sign of lack of public support structure and low equality. I guess the big question is whether the statistics show people who don't need to work, or people who can't work because they have to take care of the family.
3) Environment: since our oil and gas is offshore, it doesn't effect air and drinking water. Our biggest enviromental sins (in addition to the climate footprint of fossil fuels) is from mining and how we treat the oceans. But when comparing different countries, I'm sadly not sure that the rest of the world is any better.
-
Gaja,
My comments were largely based upon financial considerations.
http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/income/
Please note these are averages, as median income for Norway is very hard to come by from my (brief) google searches. Please feel free to send some info if you find it.
In terms of income, the cost of living would further skew the numbers against norway. The financial net worth figures speak for themselves (which should be important when arguing on a site dedicated largely to financial independence).
All of these averages are achieved with lower labour force participation rates in the US/Canada as well. A lower rate is arguably a mark of a more affluent society when less people need to be working.
Furthermore my comment was also clearly qualified by stating that the top 75% (the exact percentage being an estimate - but my intent was to specify a significant majority) would be better off in a less socialized area. You will get no arguments from me that many less advantaged members of society are worse off in the US/Canada; but if we looked only at the top 75% the numbers would be MUCH further sku'd towards more capitalistic societies.
In terms of crime statistics - no contest - the US has problems. I concur this is partially a byproduct of income inequality, but probably moreso historical injustices to racial minorities.
In terms of environment - Im not really sure tbh... The same site I listed does give an edge to Norway in terms of air quality and self-reported quality of water... but I would be suprised if Norway has such a great environmental record when its so dependant on oil/gas/ocean exploitation.
I think we see the world very differently. In my mind, money is a side aspect of the MMM philosophy. In my mind, it is mainly about freedom. Living in Norway, cost of living and taxes increase my FIRE number, while healthcare costs and cost of education for my kids reduces it. Also, due to the safety net, my FU number is very low. Thanks for the link to the OECD index. It has an interesting front page, where it is possible to adjust the different parameters: http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/#/11111111111
1) Median income is easy to find on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income. Here are some more details: https://www.ssb.no/en/ifhus/
2) Fascinating that you see lower employment rates as a positive thing. Here, the labour party ruled most of the time since WW2 under the slogan "Jobs for everyone". I learned in school that when more people (especially women) stay at home, it is a sign of lack of public support structure and low equality. I guess the big question is whether the statistics show people who don't need to work, or people who can't work because they have to take care of the family.
3) Environment: since our oil and gas is offshore, it doesn't effect air and drinking water. Our biggest enviromental sins (in addition to the climate footprint of fossil fuels) is from mining and how we treat the oceans. But when comparing different countries, I'm sadly not sure that the rest of the world is any better.
In the U.S., there is a labor participation rate that is separate from the unemployment rate. I don't know the exact parameters of the labor participation rate, but it basically concludes that a certain portion of the population has no interest in working or is unable to work. This would include retirees, students (maybe), disabled people who cannot work etc. I think simpleton was trying to make the point that these folks are being supported in some way, which is suggestive that there is an ample safety net in place if a nation has a lower labor participation rate. This may be true but may also have something to do with the age composition of a particular nation as well. I'm no expert.
-
Gaja,
My comments were largely based upon financial considerations.
http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/income/
Please note these are averages, as median income for Norway is very hard to come by from my (brief) google searches. Please feel free to send some info if you find it.
In terms of income, the cost of living would further skew the numbers against norway. The financial net worth figures speak for themselves (which should be important when arguing on a site dedicated largely to financial independence).
All of these averages are achieved with lower labour force participation rates in the US/Canada as well. A lower rate is arguably a mark of a more affluent society when less people need to be working.
Furthermore my comment was also clearly qualified by stating that the top 75% (the exact percentage being an estimate - but my intent was to specify a significant majority) would be better off in a less socialized area. You will get no arguments from me that many less advantaged members of society are worse off in the US/Canada; but if we looked only at the top 75% the numbers would be MUCH further sku'd towards more capitalistic societies.
In terms of crime statistics - no contest - the US has problems. I concur this is partially a byproduct of income inequality, but probably moreso historical injustices to racial minorities.
In terms of environment - Im not really sure tbh... The same site I listed does give an edge to Norway in terms of air quality and self-reported quality of water... but I would be suprised if Norway has such a great environmental record when its so dependant on oil/gas/ocean exploitation.
I think we see the world very differently. In my mind, money is a side aspect of the MMM philosophy. In my mind, it is mainly about freedom. Living in Norway, cost of living and taxes increase my FIRE number, while healthcare costs and cost of education for my kids reduces it. Also, due to the safety net, my FU number is very low. Thanks for the link to the OECD index. It has an interesting front page, where it is possible to adjust the different parameters: http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/#/11111111111
1) Median income is easy to find on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income. Here are some more details: https://www.ssb.no/en/ifhus/
2) Fascinating that you see lower employment rates as a positive thing. Here, the labour party ruled most of the time since WW2 under the slogan "Jobs for everyone". I learned in school that when more people (especially women) stay at home, it is a sign of lack of public support structure and low equality. I guess the big question is whether the statistics show people who don't need to work, or people who can't work because they have to take care of the family.
3) Environment: since our oil and gas is offshore, it doesn't effect air and drinking water. Our biggest enviromental sins (in addition to the climate footprint of fossil fuels) is from mining and how we treat the oceans. But when comparing different countries, I'm sadly not sure that the rest of the world is any better.
In the U.S., there is a labor participation rate that is separate from the unemployment rate. I don't know the exact parameters of the labor participation rate, but it basically concludes that a certain portion of the population has no interest in working or is unable to work. This would include retirees, students (maybe), disabled people who cannot work etc. I think simpleton was trying to make the point that these folks are being supported in some way, which is suggestive that there is an ample safety net in place if a nation has a lower labor participation rate. This may be true but may also have something to do with the age composition of a particular nation as well. I'm no expert.
Traditionally, there are two ways to see labor participation rates; one where the goal is that a family should have the freedom to have a stay at home parent (usually the mother), and one where everyone should have the freedom to work even if they have children. In my culture, the right to work is very important. Disabled people can rely on the welfare system, but fight to get support to work because they see that as taking part in society on equal grounds with everyone else. The same goes for the feminist battles, that in the Nordic countries have centered on support systems to enable more women to work, like cheap childcare and PTO for sick children. On the flip side, that means it is not easy being a SAHP in the Nordics.
If you look at the statistics here, you will see a large difference between labor participation between the genders in different countries: https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=54741
Also, to drag back a discussion from earlier: Several argued against higher wages, because that would lead to the less valuable jobs disappearing. That has already happened in the Nordics, and still we have enough jobs.
-
Bloop bloop - no one is talking about putting a cap on consumption. I'm talking about wealthy people paying higher taxes than they do in the US - just like in Scandinavia and Australia. Maybe it will be harder for wealthy people to buy a 7 bathroom house in this system but it will also be a more pleasant society generally. For context, in the city I grew up in in the US, there are children living on the streets more or less next door to the wealthiest people on earth. People die because they can't afford insulin and go bankrupt because they have cancer. Cutting down slightly on conspicuous consumption through higher taxation on the super rich to alleviate these problems is only just IMO.
And here is where we have one of the major stumbling blocks. Who is this super rich? What is the threshold for wealthy people? The notion that only the very rich would have to pay higher taxes and then we could have all the things to care for all the people is wishful thinking. Unless the definition of super rich is something more like $150,000 than it is like $150,000,000 then the numbers dont work.
Once you start getting down to that income level, suddenly a whole lot of people start playing the "middle class" card and crying poverty. And it isnt entirely irrational, since a two income household can achieve those levels without being members of the elite workforce. You arent just hitting the monacle-wearing, cigar chomping CEO now; a teacher married to a police officer can reach that income.
Its dishonest when the politicians say that if only the rich (meaning people with more money than you, dear voter) pay a fair share, that everything can be paid for.
-
Interesting viewpoints; I'm not sure people's lifetime "security vs freedom" viewpoints will shift in one thread.
Just one thought that I hadn't seen here: it seems to me that many who lean toward "security" think those who lean toward "freedom" are heartless, callous, etc. My upbringing, a common one in USA, teaches that the best way to truly help someone is to teach them work ethic, drive, purpose, etc. I honestly think people who feel this think they're acting in the best interest of the "underprivileged"; The whole "teach a man to fish" mindset.
-
Social mobility is way higher in Europe than in the US. You are much more likely to experience "the American dream" in Europe than in the US. The main killer app being free higher education. In Norway, where I live, tuition is free. Everyone is entitled to a student loan to cover living costs - the loan is provided by a government institution and interest rates are quite low - around the same as for a high-quality mortgage.
If one compares especially Scandinavia to the US its a fundamentally different way to organize a socity. Each has its pros and cons. But if you are born into unfortunate cicumstances, you are much more likely to get ahead in life in Scandinavia than in the US. If you are serious wealthy, US works a lot more in your favor to preserve your wealth.
Norway, where I live, has quite high living costs (mainly a byproduct of the overall quite high salary level) but the income tax rates are not prohibitively high for ordinary to ordinary++ incomes. And you get a fairly decent ammount of dough back in terms of services provided for the tax money you pay. The average Norwegian worker pays net negative taxes - meaning that the value of servies provided to you over your lifetime is lower than the amount of taxes you pay. Its one of very few places where an ordinary full-time-worker actually is a net financial burden to society.
-
Actual vs perceived social mobility in various countries:
-
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2019/04/26/nova-scotia-cancer-video_a_23717905/
It's important to keep in mind that there are problems with any system. I am familiar with Canada but not with Europe, so can't really speak to any issues there. Wait times for medical treatment is definitely something even Canadians in major cities worry about.
-
The part that drives me a bit nuts is how Americans are hung up in the past. Many folks DO think that the American dream is still real. Sure, for immigrants that come to the US, you can go from rags to a pretty good quality of life comparatively, but for Americans that are poor, there is very little social mobility, especially if you want to stay near family. The reality for Americans is that the lower class goes from living on the edge to either rags or, at best, status quo and the upper class goes from incredible riches to even more incredible riches. Those in the 'middle' just kind of bounce around the upper and lower limits. Trump seized on this sense of hopelessness by appealing to the middle and lower classes hoping social mobility would come back. What a crock... oops, I mean crook...
-
To be honest I do not even agree with the notion that the rich do not pay enough taxes.
In the US - the top 1% pay over 37% of all income tax, while accounting for only 19% of all income. The number is debatable but no matter if the number is 27%, 37%, or 47% you will have a bunch of people saying its too much, and a bunch of people saying its too little.
The top 10% of income filers pay 68%.
The bottom 50% pay only 3% of all income tax.
Personally I am in favor of a flat tax so that everyone has skin in the game. Everyone pays an equal share of income. It is a big problem when almost 50% of the population pays 0 effective tax after transfers. Of course they will ALWAYS vote for more spending.
The big different between Nordic countries and America is not brackets at the top (which are very comparable - at least in high tax states), its that Nordic countries tax the middle class MUCH more, and have way more sales taxes and consumption taxes.
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2018-update/
-
Another great article which I found is this one:
http://mentalfloss.com/article/545658/map-shows-average-take-home-pay-around-world
The average US family could spend for example $30,000 annually to cover things like education and healthcare and still be left with an equal after tax income comparable to a Swedish family.
-
To be honest I do not even agree with the notion that the rich do not pay enough taxes.
In the US - the top 1% pay over 37% of all income tax, while accounting for only 19% of all income. The number is debatable but no matter if the number is 27%, 37%, or 47% you will have a bunch of people saying its too much, and a bunch of people saying its too little.
The top 10% of income filers pay 68%.
The bottom 50% pay only 3% of all income tax.
Personally I am in favor of a flat tax so that everyone has skin in the game. Everyone pays an equal share of income. It is a big problem when almost 50% of the population pays 0 effective tax after transfers. Of course they will ALWAYS vote for more spending.
The big different between Nordic countries and America is not brackets at the top (which are very comparable - at least in high tax states), its that Nordic countries tax the middle class MUCH more, and have way more sales taxes and consumption taxes.
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2018-update/
Here, here.
-
My upbringing, a common one in USA, teaches that the best way to truly help someone is to teach them work ethic, drive, purpose, etc. I honestly think people who feel this think they're acting in the best interest of the "underprivileged"; The whole "teach a man to fish" mindset.
The problem is that it's no use teaching a man to fish if the company you own has polluted the river and killed all the fish.
This is the issue in the modern West: by means of economic rationalism and free trade, we have greatly reduced job opportunities for low-skilled workers. We've eliminated those jobs or sent them overseas. "Get more skills!" Sure - but the country only needs so many accountants and lawyers and so on.
Our governments and corporations have created the conditions in which low-skilled workers have fewer job opportunities. You cannot fire a person and then berate him for being unemployed.
-
Kyle, you are correct. We have mechanised, automated or outsourced a lot of low-skilled labour and most of the profit of that has gone to corporations.
I think there is an argument that corporations ought to pay slightly more tax on profits. It would reduce the income tax of high-earners who unfortunately do so much lifting right now. (The fact that your friendly neighbourhood surgeon pays a much higher tax rate than, say, Google or Amazon, is ridiculous.)
-
My upbringing, a common one in USA, teaches that the best way to truly help someone is to teach them work ethic, drive, purpose, etc. I honestly think people who feel this think they're acting in the best interest of the "underprivileged"; The whole "teach a man to fish" mindset.
The problem is that it's no use teaching a man to fish if the company you own has polluted the river and killed all the fish.
This is the issue in the modern West: by means of economic rationalism and free trade, we have greatly reduced job opportunities for low-skilled workers. We've eliminated those jobs or sent them overseas. "Get more skills!" Sure - but the country only needs so many accountants and lawyers and so on.
Our governments and corporations have created the conditions in which low-skilled workers have fewer job opportunities. You cannot fire a person and then berate him for being unemployed.
This line of reasoning is a total fabrication though. The US unemployment rate is at 3.7% arguably the lowest its been in over 50 years. There are more jobs today than there have ever been in the history of the country. The unemployment rate is incredibly low by international standards as well. If you want a job the in the US - the vast majority of people will be able to find one.
-
I think the gist of the argument is that the unemployment rate hides things like precarious employment and very poorly paid employment.
In most people's view, a job (even a crap one) ought to pay well enough to prevent a worker from starving or lacking basic clothes and shelter.
Beyond that, some people think that jobs ought to provide a living wage or full participation in the community etc etc. Others do not believe that any such entitlements should be afforded as of right.
My view is that a full-time job ought to provide a very meagre level of sustenance. I think the Australian min wage is too high (and therefore discourages work at the bottom end) and the U.S. min wage in most states is too low.
-
Personally I am in favor of a flat tax so that everyone has skin in the game. Everyone pays an equal share of income. It is a big problem when almost 50% of the population pays 0 effective tax after transfers. Of course they will ALWAYS vote for more spending.
The problem with a flat tax rate is that for the tax revenue to stay the same, the tax rate would need to be significantly higher for lower incomes. A tax system generally has some redistributive properties (more so in say Scandinavia than most places). In Norway there is a fairly large deductible - if you make say $40k pr year, you pay no taxes and no social security on the first 12k you make. Hence the effective tax rate for low incomes is quite low.
Until quite recently - VAT (sales tax) was actually a higher source of revenue for the Norwegian government than income tax from individuals. High sales taxes - which are quite common in Europe (25% on most stuff in Norway) is effectively a regressive way of taxation as everyone has the same basic needs regardless of income so it's rather hard to not pay a siginificant ammount sales tax.
-
Up through 2017 I ran a contracting company with about 65 employees. We were always short handed on help because we couldn't hire and keep decent help, yet we started them out at a wage better than just about anyplace else in the county, and given a few years of reliable attendance and learning some skills one could easily work themselves up to a wage better than just about anyplace else around. We also had a good retirement savings plan with company match, good health insurance, paid vacations and holidays, a wellness program, many programs to get employees and their families involved in the community, etc., also offered a lot of overtime and some have company vehicles.
To get a shot at a job you had to be drug free, reasonably presentable, had to get to work every day, and the skills were trained on the job. I can't tell you how many people would wash out in first thirty days or less due to getting popped on a drug test, attendance, or just quitting because it just wasn't their thing. There is a reason you hear people gripe and say "nobody wants to work anymore". I've seen it first hand. A little physical work, getting up early, getting a little dirty at their job, working a few long days or occasional weekend seems to be beneath a whole lot of people out there. They'd rather sling burgers at MacDonalds and gripe about being poor, than put in a little effort to better themselves.
This story is not made up. The average trades person now in America is in their 50's and rapidly approaching retirement age. Nearly all of the skilled trades jobs are starving for entry level help, but the jobs go unfilled. Plenty of good work out there for anybody that wants it.
-
Social mobility is way higher in Europe than in the US. You are much more likely to experience "the American dream" in Europe than in the US. The main killer app being free higher education. In Norway, where I live, tuition is free. Everyone is entitled to a student loan to cover living costs - the loan is provided by a government institution and interest rates are quite low - around the same as for a high-quality mortgage.
If one compares especially Scandinavia to the US its a fundamentally different way to organize a socity. Each has its pros and cons. But if you are born into unfortunate cicumstances, you are much more likely to get ahead in life in Scandinavia than in the US. If you are serious wealthy, US works a lot more in your favor to preserve your wealth.
@habaneroNorway, your post highlights my main discomfort with raising the minimum wage. Paying unskilled workers a little more doesn't address the lack of affordable housing and childcare, or the high cost of education and healthcare. I fear it might actually make those problems worse through inflation. We have to find a new way to organize our society to address these core issues.
Those of us who participate in this forum spend quite a lot of time discussing how to optimize our budgets for these essentials, low skilled workers may not have the time or intellectual resources to do the same. So maybe it's up to us to find a creative solution (after we wipe out malaria of course).
-
Its one thing to live frugally by choice and saving a large part of income vs living frugally because you don't have any alternative. If you have a decent stash, then pretty much any unforseen expense is sth that is handled with ease, just use some of the EF or put a little less towards saving that month. It's vastly different for someone who has very little to no slack in the monthly budget - then money is a constant source for worry - not something one happily watches grow over time.
The effect of rising pay by just a small ammount is massive. Its much better for health than any medicine invented.
This one is very good:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/02/21/magazine/minimum-wage-saving-lives.html
A $15 minimum wage is an antidepressant. It is a sleep aid. A diet. A stress reliever. It is a contraceptive, preventing teenage pregnancy. It prevents premature death. It shields children from neglect. But why? Poverty can be unrelenting, shame-inducing and exhausting. When people live so close to the bone, a small setback can quickly spiral into a major trauma. Being a few days behind on the rent can trigger a hefty late fee, which can lead to an eviction and homelessness. An unpaid traffic ticket can lead to a suspended license, which can cause people to lose their only means of transportation to work. In the same way, modest wage increases have a profound impact on people’s well-being and happiness. Poverty will never be ameliorated on the cheap. But this truth should not prevent us from acknowledging how powerfully workers respond to relatively small income boosts.
“When the minimum wage goes up, I see it,” says Dr. Margot Kushel, who directs the University of California, San Francisco Center for Vulnerable Populations, which is based in a local hospital. San Francisco and surrounding cities raised the minimum wage to $15 an hour last July. When Kushel’s patients have a bit more money in their pockets, “they exercise more. They are less stressed and can quit smoking. Their mental health improves pretty dramatically. Their sleep gets better. And people start eating healthier almost immediately.” Kushel continued: “We will spend an incredible amount on a new heart drug. But if we increased wages by $1, we’d save more lives.”
-
Bloop bloop - no one is talking about putting a cap on consumption. I'm talking about wealthy people paying higher taxes than they do in the US - just like in Scandinavia and Australia. Maybe it will be harder for wealthy people to buy a 7 bathroom house in this system but it will also be a more pleasant society generally. For context, in the city I grew up in in the US, there are children living on the streets more or less next door to the wealthiest people on earth. People die because they can't afford insulin and go bankrupt because they have cancer. Cutting down slightly on conspicuous consumption through higher taxation on the super rich to alleviate these problems is only just IMO.
And here is where we have one of the major stumbling blocks. Who is this super rich? What is the threshold for wealthy people? The notion that only the very rich would have to pay higher taxes and then we could have all the things to care for all the people is wishful thinking. Unless the definition of super rich is something more like $150,000 than it is like $150,000,000 then the numbers dont work.
Once you start getting down to that income level, suddenly a whole lot of people start playing the "middle class" card and crying poverty. And it isnt entirely irrational, since a two income household can achieve those levels without being members of the elite workforce. You arent just hitting the monacle-wearing, cigar chomping CEO now; a teacher married to a police officer can reach that income.
Its dishonest when the politicians say that if only the rich (meaning people with more money than you, dear voter) pay a fair share, that everything can be paid for.
Individual income of more than 500,000 dollars a year leaves a very safe margin for the definition of super wealthy.
99.3% of people don't make that in a year . . . and have no reasonable hope of ever getting to that level. Yet more than a million Americans are above that level (https://www.politico.com/story/2011/08/irs-235-413-million-dollar-earners-060717 (https://www.politico.com/story/2011/08/irs-235-413-million-dollar-earners-060717)), so there's plenty of income to tax.
-
I haven't read all of the comments, so someone might have already said this. But the gist of what I'm reading is that most people believe that it would be better if the poorest people in the US had a little more and the richest people in the US had a little less. Almost no one except for sociopaths disagrees that it would be better to not have someone dying of starvation if all it means is someone else giving from their excess. That's not what's being argued. Here are two dissenting arguments:
Two people are stranded on an island with tons of coconut trees. Person A works all day finding and picking coconuts. He even devises a tool that will help him pick and process the coconuts. It even becomes a game for him because he can process more than he can even eat. Person B is upset that they are stranded, he refuses to do any work because he thinks their situation is unfair. Person A tells Person B that he will give him just enough coconuts to live if he works 8 hours a day because he doesn't want to see him starve. Person B does just the minimum to make it look like he is working in order to get the coconuts from A, but mostly spends his time lounging around and drinking. Person A knows this and follows through on his agreement but is unwilling to give him more than agreed upon. He would rather throw the coconuts away than reward Person B with his excesses.
Scenario 2 is there are 100 people stranded on the island. There is one person (person A) who is amazing at picking coconuts. He can pick 200 a day, more than all of the island needs but he has to work 10 hr days to do it. No one else on the island can pick more than 1. Some can pick none. Everyone gets together and says person A should share with everyone else. He agrees and gives away 150 of his coconuts. Then a few weeks later, the island people demand that he gives away 195 of his coconuts. Person A says to himself, why am I killing myself working 10 hr days just to give it all away. I will start only working 5 minutes a day and pick just enough coconuts for myself since I have to give any excess away anyways. The other island people starve and die.
These are simple and extreme examples but some of the concerns with wealth redistribution. If it was as simple as just taking some excess money and giving it to those in need, there wouldn't be a debate. But it might be best for the economy and everyone in the country to let the producers hang on to more of their money in order to incentivize production. In other words even the lower class might be better off than they would be in a more evenly distributed economy. The quality of life of our poor generally is better than the poor of most of the world. Our rich are just richer than the rich of the rest of the world. It would be silly to make everyone more poor just so their isn't as big of a wealth gap.
-
I haven't read all of the comments, so someone might have already said this. But the gist of what I'm reading is that most people believe that it would be better if the poorest people in the US had a little more and the richest people in the US had a little less. Almost no one except for sociopaths disagrees that it would be better to not have someone dying of starvation if all it means is someone else giving from their excess. That's not what's being argued. Here are two dissenting arguments:
Two people are stranded on an island with tons of coconut trees. Person A works all day finding and picking coconuts. He even devises a tool that will help him pick and process the coconuts. It even becomes a game for him because he can process more than he can even eat. Person B is upset that they are stranded, he refuses to do any work because he thinks their situation is unfair. Person A tells Person B that he will give him just enough coconuts to live if he works 8 hours a day because he doesn't want to see him starve. Person B does just the minimum to make it look like he is working in order to get the coconuts from A, but mostly spends his time lounging around and drinking. Person A knows this and follows through on his agreement but is unwilling to give him more than agreed upon. He would rather throw the coconuts away than reward Person B with his excesses.
Scenario 2 is there are 100 people stranded on the island. There is one person (person A) who is amazing at picking coconuts. He can pick 200 a day, more than all of the island needs but he has to work 10 hr days to do it. No one else on the island can pick more than 1. Some can pick none. Everyone gets together and says person A should share with everyone else. He agrees and gives away 150 of his coconuts. Then a few weeks later, the island people demand that he gives away 195 of his coconuts. Person A says to himself, why am I killing myself working 10 hr days just to give it all away. I will start only working 5 minutes a day and pick just enough coconuts for myself since I have to give any excess away anyways. The other island people starve and die.
These are simple and extreme examples but some of the concerns with wealth redistribution. If it was as simple as just taking some excess money and giving it to those in need, there wouldn't be a debate. But it might be best for the economy and everyone in the country to let the producers hang on to more of their money in order to incentivize production. In other words even the lower class might be better off than they would be in a more evenly distributed economy. The quality of life of our poor generally is better than the poor of most of the world. Our rich are just richer than the rich of the rest of the world. It would be silly to make everyone more poor just so their isn't as big of a wealth gap.
Scenario 3 - Two people are stranded on an island with tons of coconut trees. Person A works all day finding and picking coconuts. He even devises a tool that will help him pick and process the coconuts. It even becomes a game for him because he can process more than he can even eat. Person B is upset that they are stranded, he refuses to do any work because he thinks their situation is unfair. Person A tells Person B that he will give him just enough coconuts to live if he works 8 hours a day because he doesn't want to see him starve. Person B does just the minimum to make it look like he is working in order to get the coconuts from A, but mostly spends his time lounging around and drinking. Person A knows this and follows through on his agreement but is unwilling to give him more than agreed upon. He would rather throw the coconuts away than reward Person B with his excesses.
Person B gets tired of Person A and kills him, taking all the coconuts along with the coconut picking tool.
Scenario 4 - There are 100 people stranded on an island. One of them had a father who bought the island years ago before dying. Since he therefore owns all the land and the coconuts on island, this person tells the 30 strongest people to be his security force, promising them coconuts as pay. He uses the security force to make the 50 people he likes the least to pick coconuts all day (for every 10 coconuts picked, they get to keep 1). He pays the 20 women he likes the most to be servants and sex workers from the coconuts that he didn't work for.
This system goes on for a while until there's a bad coconut season because of over-harvesting. When the security force comes to take the few coconuts that there are away, there's a revolt. All 30 of the security force and 40 of the coconut pickers die. The owner of the island is beaten to death with coconuts gleefully by the members of his harem and servants.
Hopefully, these scenarios show the ridiculousness of assuming that the hardest worker will always win. In reality there are many extremely hard working people who never get out of low paying jobs . . . and relatively useless people who are born into wealth, have every mistake paid for by their dad, and eventually become the president of the United States.
-
-snip-
...Person B does just the minimum to make it look like he is working in order to get the coconuts from A, but mostly spends his time lounging around and drinking. Person A knows this and follows through on his agreement but is unwilling to give him more than agreed upon. He would rather throw the coconuts away than reward Person B with his excesses.
Scenario 2 is there are 100 people stranded on the island. There is one person (person A) who is amazing at picking coconuts. He can pick 200 a day, more than all of the island needs but he has to work 10 hr days to do it. No one else on the island can pick more than 1. Some can pick none. Everyone gets together and says person A should share with everyone else. He agrees and gives away 150 of his coconuts. Then a few weeks later, the island people demand that he gives away 195 of his coconuts. Person A says to himself, why am I killing myself working 10 hr days just to give it all away. I will start only working 5 minutes a day and pick just enough coconuts for myself since I have to give any excess away anyways. The other island people starve and die.
Why did I spend all that time reading Atlas Shrugged when I could've just read this? Glad it's all settled now, just like when Ayn Rand made the same arguments in 1957. Hope the billionaires don't jet off to an undetectable valley of Eden where they can enjoy their self-sufficient abundance, since we useless masses treat them so poorly in the US.
-
I haven't read all of the comments, so someone might have already said this. But the gist of what I'm reading is that most people believe that it would be better if the poorest people in the US had a little more and the richest people in the US had a little less. Almost no one except for sociopaths disagrees that it would be better to not have someone dying of starvation if all it means is someone else giving from their excess. That's not what's being argued. Here are two dissenting arguments:
Two people are stranded on an island with tons of coconut trees. Person A works all day finding and picking coconuts. He even devises a tool that will help him pick and process the coconuts. It even becomes a game for him because he can process more than he can even eat. Person B is upset that they are stranded, he refuses to do any work because he thinks their situation is unfair. Person A tells Person B that he will give him just enough coconuts to live if he works 8 hours a day because he doesn't want to see him starve. Person B does just the minimum to make it look like he is working in order to get the coconuts from A, but mostly spends his time lounging around and drinking. Person A knows this and follows through on his agreement but is unwilling to give him more than agreed upon. He would rather throw the coconuts away than reward Person B with his excesses.
Scenario 2 is there are 100 people stranded on the island. There is one person (person A) who is amazing at picking coconuts. He can pick 200 a day, more than all of the island needs but he has to work 10 hr days to do it. No one else on the island can pick more than 1. Some can pick none. Everyone gets together and says person A should share with everyone else. He agrees and gives away 150 of his coconuts. Then a few weeks later, the island people demand that he gives away 195 of his coconuts. Person A says to himself, why am I killing myself working 10 hr days just to give it all away. I will start only working 5 minutes a day and pick just enough coconuts for myself since I have to give any excess away anyways. The other island people starve and die.
These are simple and extreme examples but some of the concerns with wealth redistribution. If it was as simple as just taking some excess money and giving it to those in need, there wouldn't be a debate. But it might be best for the economy and everyone in the country to let the producers hang on to more of their money in order to incentivize production. In other words even the lower class might be better off than they would be in a more evenly distributed economy. The quality of life of our poor generally is better than the poor of most of the world. Our rich are just richer than the rich of the rest of the world. It would be silly to make everyone more poor just so their isn't as big of a wealth gap.
Scenario 3 - Two people are stranded on an island with tons of coconut trees. Person A works all day finding and picking coconuts. He even devises a tool that will help him pick and process the coconuts. It even becomes a game for him because he can process more than he can even eat. Person B is upset that they are stranded, he refuses to do any work because he thinks their situation is unfair. Person A tells Person B that he will give him just enough coconuts to live if he works 8 hours a day because he doesn't want to see him starve. Person B does just the minimum to make it look like he is working in order to get the coconuts from A, but mostly spends his time lounging around and drinking. Person A knows this and follows through on his agreement but is unwilling to give him more than agreed upon. He would rather throw the coconuts away than reward Person B with his excesses.
Person B gets tired of Person A and kills him, taking all the coconuts along with the coconut picking tool.
Scenario 4 - There are 100 people stranded on an island. One of them had a father who bought the island years ago before dying. Since he therefore owns all the land and the coconuts on island, this person tells the 30 strongest people to be his security force, promising them coconuts as pay. He uses the security force to make the 50 people he likes the least to pick coconuts all day (for every 10 coconuts picked, they get to keep 1). He pays the 20 women he likes the most to be servants and sex workers from the coconuts that he didn't work for.
This system goes on for a while until there's a bad coconut season because of over-harvesting. When the security force comes to take the few coconuts that there are away, there's a revolt. All 30 of the security force and 40 of the coconut pickers die. The owner of the island is beaten to death with coconuts gleefully by the members of his harem and servants.
Hopefully, these scenarios show the ridiculousness of assuming that the hardest worker will always win. In reality there are many extremely hard working people who never get out of low paying jobs . . . and relatively useless people who are born into wealth, have every mistake paid for by their dad, and eventually become the president of the United States.
Yep, not arguing that there aren't other ways to frame wealth inequality. Just pointing out some of the arguments of people who are not in favor of more wealth redistribution. Hopefully this focuses the discussion on which framework most accurately describes reality, instead of assuming that people who are against redistribution are just selfish and hate poor people.
-
In the coconut example, the clever capitalist would pay his worker just enough coconuts to ensure a meagre living, and then supply enough base forms of media (TV, bread and circuses) to prevent a revolution.
I mean, look at the U.S. right now. It's not like the working class is up in arms over anything - other than the usual racist stuff. They aren't clamouring for revolution.
As for the min wage argument, as I've said many times, the trouble with increasing min wage is that it devalues the work of everyone else. There are obvious humanitarian reasons to do it, but there are efficiency reasons not to do it. To give a related example, the Australian government used to spend hundreds of millions of dollars propping up our car industry. The subsidy came out to something like $80,000 per worker per year. It was ridiculous. The government (used to) justified this on the grounds that the workers were better off with jobs than without. But then everyone else is slightly worse off because they are collectively paying a bit more tax each. Personally, I would empathise with the public taxpayer rather than the subsidised worker.
Min wage works the same way. We are subsidising those whose skillsets aren't up to scratch. I'm not arguing for the abolition of a min wage, but I'm saying that you have to be careful not to be too generous.
-
My upbringing, a common one in USA, teaches that the best way to truly help someone is to teach them work ethic, drive, purpose, etc. I honestly think people who feel this think they're acting in the best interest of the "underprivileged"; The whole "teach a man to fish" mindset.
The problem is that it's no use teaching a man to fish if the company you own has polluted the river and killed all the fish.
This is the issue in the modern West: by means of economic rationalism and free trade, we have greatly reduced job opportunities for low-skilled workers. We've eliminated those jobs or sent them overseas. "Get more skills!" Sure - but the country only needs so many accountants and lawyers and so on.
Our governments and corporations have created the conditions in which low-skilled workers have fewer job opportunities. You cannot fire a person and then berate him for being unemployed.
I was going to say something similar, but you said it better.
Also: the two aren't mutually exclusive. We can "teach a man to fish" and have a strong social safety net. We can expect people to work and also subsidize education, health care, and child care. In fact, I would argue that on some face it encourages working. If you know you are guaranteed health care no matter what job you have, you can afford child care, and if you get decent grades you can further your education - it gives you far more hope.
I find it...odd and disturbing the comments that I read here about "bettering yourself" and "teaching a man to fish". I sometimes hear this in real life too. So, is it just my bubble? When did "working hard at a job, any job" become something shameful. I grew up rural, and there was nothing shameful about working at a glass plant, building trailers, cleaning toilets, stocking shelves, digging ditches. Being lazy was shameful but working hard at what you did was something to be proud of. (My dad was blue collar, as are many of my siblings and their spouses). Is it just my new bubble?
If "teaching a man to fish" means someone is working multiple hard (but low paying jobs) to eke together a life of poverty where you cannot afford to see a dentist, and die if you get cancer ... then I want nothing of it.
-
I don't think 'bettering yourself' is meant to denigrate "blue collar" jobs at all - I don't make any distinction between blue collar and white collar, and many blue collar jobs (e.g. jobs on offshore oil rigs) pay astoundingly well. More power to those workers!
In fact, one of the things that annoys me about my own country is that there are a lot of jobs that pay $18/hour for fruit picking, toilet cleaning, sweeping floors etc and no one wants those because they don't lead to a professional career. Well, as you say, working hard is something to be proud of, and you have to start somewhere.
-
Yep, not arguing that there aren't other ways to frame wealth inequality. Just pointing out some of the arguments of people who are not in favor of more wealth redistribution. Hopefully this focuses the discussion on which framework most accurately describes reality, instead of assuming that people who are against redistribution are just selfish and hate poor people.
I'm not sure how we got to this strawman argument. The outcome, coconut economy or not, should be for everyone to work together to ensure enough for the folks at the bottom and sufficient rewards for those at the top to flourish. No system is perfect, Socialism provides a safety net for the most needy as well as social mobility for those who start out disadvantaged but are willing to take advantage of programs in order to better their circumstances. Pure capitalism provides incentive to out-compete and, given something like the 'invisible hand' means that society gains from economic pie growing for everyone. America has a fluid system that has skewed more and more toward Capitalism and Europe has a more Socialistic system with some amount of Capitalism. Neither system is perfect for everyone all the time.
But let's stop this 'rich people are treated so poorly and are so misunderstood' business. They can always pull a Bill Gates or Warren Buffett and give away their wealth if they want to be loved, and still have plenty left over for themselves. I really do struggle to buy in to any argument that the billionaires are treated unfairly in the US.
-
But let's stop this 'rich people are treated so poorly and are so misunderstood' business. They can always pull a Bill Gates or Warren Buffett and give away their wealth if they want to be loved, and still have plenty left over for themselves. I really do struggle to buy in to any argument that the billionaires are treated unfairly in the US.
This is a very important point. Being rich comes with ridiculous benefits . . . one of which is that you can effortlessly give away your riches and become poor at any moment of the day. That's quite a different situation from the one that poor people find themselves in.
-
The US ranks 10th in the world in billionaires per capita (as a fun fact both Norway (8th) and Sweden (6th) rank above). However, the scandinavian billionaires have far fewer billions than the wealthiest persons in the US.
-
I don't doubt that USA is great for the ones that are strong, healthy, smart, driven. People in that conditions probably earns more money there that in any other place in the world.
The problem are the ones that are left behind. Those that are weak, unhealthy, really poor, less smart or without chance to do their studies. It can be any of us in a part of our lifes. Probably you know persons who had great jobs and suddenly were unemployed without any safety net.
You deeply believe that everyone has chances to suceed and if anyone doesnt is because they dont really want to. But someone stated it and I think its true, the social elevator is a bit broken right now and the healthy capitalism is gone.
I defend the hard work, and dont get me wrong, those who work more deserve more money. But, as I said before, no one works 1000 more than a coworker.
About comparations, I dont want to make this more than a healthy debate about social approaches, but:
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/quality-of-life-rankings
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-worlds-healthiest-countries-ranked/
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/sp.dyn.le00.in
https://data.oecd.org/emp/employment-rate.htm
https://safearound.com/danger-rankings/
All the rankings about quality of life, health, security, inequality, poverty, put countries like the Nordic on top. In this countries you can study almost or even for free, you can have a severe disease and you will be treated, this is the real opportunity for everyone. And USA is richer than any of these, so imagine if money was well (or at least better) distributed...
Keep your work ethic culture, but put a break on your top executives please, or the money will be in fewer hands year by year.
-
This line of reasoning is a total fabrication though. The US unemployment rate is at 3.7% arguably the lowest its been in over 50 years.
"arguably"
If you work a single hour in a week you're counted as employed. If you've given up looking for work you're not counted as unemployed. If you're a uni student with a job you're counted as employed, but if you've no job then you're not counted as unemployed. And so on.
A job is not equal to a job. There is a big difference between a permanent full-time job at an auto factory with sick and holiday pay where you know that so long as you don't actually clock anyone in the noggin you'll stay employed for decades and get a pension, and a couple of 4 hour casual shifts a week as a cleaner, which shift can be cancelled on you with two hours' notice, no sick or holiday pay, etc.
one of the things that annoys me about my own country is that there are a lot of jobs that pay $18/hour for fruit picking, toilet cleaning, sweeping floors etc and no one wants those because they don't lead to a professional career.
They're insecure jobs. So your income is $1,000 this week and $0 the next. This is the financial equivalent of the crazy BPD girlfriend who fucks you silly all night this week and next week won't talk to you. Nobody wants that. People want boring stability.
Secure permanent full-time jobs for the working class have gone overseas or been automated, and replaced with insecure casual part-time jobs. The professional salaried classes have not suffered from this, in fact they've benefited from it by access to cheaper goods and services. A failure of the professional salaried classes to understand or care about this is why the (formerly) working classes have voted for various dickheads across the Western world.
There used to be better opportunities for all. We have outsourced our opportunities. Free trade is a foreign aid measure. That's good, we want global prosperity after all, but that some Chinese or Indian people now have better lives is not much comfort to the laid-off Aussie, British or American worker who can no longer pay their rent.
"You know what the trouble is, Brucey? We used to make shit in this country, build shit. Now we just put our hand in the next guy's pocket." - Frank Sobotka, The Wire
Now, the well-off will read that and think, "yes, it's terrible to put your hand in my pocket!" But that wasn't what the guy meant. He meant that when you make something, you have pride in what you do. That sense of being a productive person, doing something of value. People want that. They're ashamed of having to put their hand in someone else's pocket. The idea that the unemployed are just lazy and idle is one that is very comforting to the professional salaried classes, because it absolves you of responsibility. The unemployed are not any more lazy and idle than the professional salaried, plenty of whom spend most of their day avoiding doing anything productive.
Most people want to be productive - but they also want fair pay for that productivity, and some security and respect.
-
But let's stop this 'rich people are treated so poorly and are so misunderstood' business. They can always pull a Bill Gates or Warren Buffett and give away their wealth if they want to be loved, and still have plenty left over for themselves. I really do struggle to buy in to any argument that the billionaires are treated unfairly in the US.
This is a very important point. Being rich comes with ridiculous benefits . . . one of which is that you can effortlessly give away your riches and become poor at any moment of the day. That's quite a different situation from the one that poor people find themselves in.
This argument has elements of straw man and false equivalency. Firstly no one is defending billionaires. Most of us in this topic are defending plain rich people with maybe a low-to-mid 6 figure income (call them the top 1-3%) who pay punitive taxes in order to subsidise a lot of other people in society, but who don't have the mind boggling benefits of the top 0.1%. Also, saying that person A and person B are in 'quite a different situation' is a false equivalency unless you discuss the different paths that they took to get there.
-
Secure permanent full-time jobs for the working class have gone overseas or been automated, and replaced with insecure casual part-time jobs. The professional salaried classes have not suffered from this, in fact they've benefited from it by access to cheaper goods and services. A failure of the professional salaried classes to understand or care about this is why the (formerly) working classes have voted for various dickheads across the Western world.
There used to be better opportunities for all. We have outsourced our opportunities. Free trade is a foreign aid measure. That's good, we want global prosperity after all, but that some Chinese or Indian people now have better lives is not much comfort to the laid-off Aussie, British or American worker who can no longer pay their rent.
I think this post sums up as well as any post in this topic what the crux of the issue is about. From relatively egalitarian past to a somewhat cut-throat present, society has evolved. We have an obligation to ensure a safety net for the unlucky or incapable who get left behind - the question is how comprehensive that safety net ought to be.
A related issue is that the rise of female full-time workers has only exacerbated the shift. Not due to anything relating to gender, but rather because now a typical household has two income units instead of one, thus doubling the potential for inequality.
-
But let's stop this 'rich people are treated so poorly and are so misunderstood' business. They can always pull a Bill Gates or Warren Buffett and give away their wealth if they want to be loved, and still have plenty left over for themselves. I really do struggle to buy in to any argument that the billionaires are treated unfairly in the US.
This is a very important point. Being rich comes with ridiculous benefits . . . one of which is that you can effortlessly give away your riches and become poor at any moment of the day. That's quite a different situation from the one that poor people find themselves in.
This argument has elements of straw man and false equivalency. Firstly no one is defending billionaires. Most of us in this topic are defending plain rich people with maybe a low-to-mid 6 figure income (call them the top 1-3%) who pay punitive taxes in order to subsidise a lot of other people in society, but who don't have the mind boggling benefits of the top 0.1%. Also, saying that person A and person B are in 'quite a different situation' is a false equivalency unless you discuss the different paths that they took to get there.
Why are you assuming that taxation means taxing people with a low-to-mid 6 figure income? Why not have a wealth tax on the 0.1%? Why not have a turnover tax on Amazon and Facebook? Why not more tax on the most damaging fossil fuels? It's not just all about you, you know.
-
Probably because to date, in all the western democracies, it is the 1-3%, not the 0.1%, not the large companies with huge turnover, who bear the most disproportionate burden.
-
Probably because to date, in all the western democracies, it is the 1-3%, not the 0.1%, not the large companies with huge turnover, who bear the most disproportionate burden.
Enough money to pay taxes, not enough money to buy politicians.
-
Probably because to date, in all the western democracies, it is the 1-3%, not the 0.1%, not the large companies with huge turnover, who bear the most disproportionate burden.
Enough money to pay taxes, not enough money to buy politicians.
Hear hear
-
Following the usnews ranking site (https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/quality-of-life-rankings), it looks like France got ranked (and of course all these metrics could be debated) #10 worldwide. Then you follow the "data explorer" page and see that their rank corresponds with a score of 87/100. Meanwhile #20, Spain got a 63/100. Let's say we compare USA (#8, 92 pts) with Australia (#7, 93 pts). We're spending all this time debating about an overall score difference of one point? Why are we worried about the systems in place in the top 10 when 90% of countries score so much lower?
The problem are the ones that are left behind. Those that are weak, unhealthy, really poor, less smart or without chance to do their studies. It can be any of us in a part of our lifes. Probably you know persons who had great jobs and suddenly were unemployed without any safety net.
You deeply believe that everyone has chances to suceed and if anyone doesnt is because they dont really want to.
I think both sides on these issues are guilty of painting them as "black and white". From the "freedom" side we hear about lazy freeloaders, and from the "security" side we hear about people dying in the streets. I personally think both of these fears are overblown, and while these discussions are interesting we're just debating shades of grey. We all generally agree; as someone said it's just how comprehensive to make the safety net. I mean, let's imagine one of us moved across the pond and lived in the other society. Would we end up so drastically different? I'd be willing to bet someone who achieves in one achieves in the other, and someone who struggles in one struggles in the other. Even to be in the lower echelons of our societies is pretty good compared to any other location at any other time in history.
Not to make it TOO political, but it reminds me of thinking about presidential elections. Had Clinton been elected, would my life be drastically different? Did my life shift from Bush to Obama? I get that some people would come out a little ahead and a little behind...and I'm no fan of Trump...but jeeze in the big picture I feel we put too much emphasis on the importance of politics. My feeling is that my country has two parties offering slightly different shades of grey, and probably will for my entire lifetime. Even responding to this thread I'm thinking "what good is this doing?". Maybe I'm just cynical, or simplifying things too much, but I think I can control my life way more than the politician in office.
Maybe this is too simplistic, but a funny thing is that this site is made up of individuals who went down this financial rabbit hole. We all got here after looking up some niche topic that the vast majority of people will never abide by. We are trying to better ourselves; recognizing that we can learn from others who made similar choices. Of course we had help from society to get to where we are and of course there are those less fortunate in society who we'll help... but at the end of the day, no one is going to work as hard for yourself as you will.
-
The encouragement to not take personal responsibility and point fingers at someone ELSE for your misfortune is really what gets me about the video in the OP. "My poverty is the fault of society, or rich CEOs, or lack of a trust fund, so there is nothing I can do about it."
Many people end up in a hole because of a combination of bad luck + bad decisions. But very few people will acknowledge the bad decisions. All they talk about is the bad luck, and it is not socially acceptable for other people to point out their bad decisions. This does not encourage any sort of positive change.
You can bemoan your situation and wait for the next wealth redistribution, but even if it comes, will someone who's been taught to believe that they are not in control of their financial situation really be able to take advantage of it?
I've always felt that one of the key differences between this forum and the rest of the Internet is the acknowledgement that no matter what your situation, YOU and ONLY YOU have the power to change your life for the better.
P.S. I've sometimes wondered if this is a whole mindset that starts from how we now educate our children. When your kid loses a toy and cries, you are supposed to commiserate with them so that they feel your empathy and it strengthens the parent-child bond. You are apparently not supposed to point out that they are responsible for their own toys and should take better care of things that are important to them.
-
Following the usnews ranking site (https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/quality-of-life-rankings), it looks like France got ranked (and of course all these metrics could be debated) #10 worldwide. Then you follow the "data explorer" page and see that their rank corresponds with a score of 87/100. Meanwhile #20, Spain got a 63/100. Let's say we compare USA (#8, 92 pts) with Australia (#7, 93 pts). We're spending all this time debating about an overall score difference of one point? Why are we worried about the systems in place in the top 10 when 90% of countries score so much lower?
Interesting ranking categories in that site's rankings. I'm not quite sure how a ranking of "Sexy" works in the context of a country. And I'm guessing the "Pleasant Climate" is an average of the country's climate not a reflection of options within the country. Denmark ranks higher than the US in that category but I would think that having almost any sort of environment to live in would be more appealing. Not to mention you're comparing the climate average of a country the size of Ohio with a country ~230x larger. You want hot and dry? Check. Hot and wet? Check. North of the Arctic circle. I'm not sure why but ok. Island in a sea? Yep. Island in an Ocean? Check. House where the sun sets over the ocean. Ok. House where the sun rises over the ocean. Sure. Multiple mountain ranges. Check. Complete flat land. Yep. Massive fresh water lakes? Check. Thousands of small lakes? Yep we got that too. But, as you point out, all the metrics could be debated
-
-snip-
I've always felt that one of the key differences between this forum and the rest of the Internet is the acknowledgement that no matter what your situation, YOU and ONLY YOU have the power to change your life for the better.
We just have to be careful that we have not weaponized that message. Using the same logic, it would be easy for the Walt Disney CEO to justify keeping the vast majority of net income as his salary and stock appreciation as his net worth because all of the workers have enough to live on and just enough of a retirement plan to eventually retire. In fact, this situation benefits the CEO because people are kept just out of the reach of poverty as long as they work. And if they complain about this, then the problem is with THEIR lifestyle.
Any FIRE blog will tell you, achieving FIRE is a whole lot easier the higher the income. At the working class end of the spectrum, the savings rate problem is both a spending problem and a lack of income problem, not always just spending.
-
I think this post sums up as well as any post in this topic what the crux of the issue is about. From relatively egalitarian past to a somewhat cut-throat present, society has evolved. We have an obligation to ensure a safety net for the unlucky or incapable who get left behind - the question is how comprehensive that safety net ought to be.
"Evolved" implies a natural process, and economics is not a natural process. It's a series of decisions made by individuals working in their interest, directly or indirectly.
For example, as I said, free trade leads to the loss of secure full-time employment for the working class, sending this work to people overseas. This works in favour of the salaried professional classes, which is to say the middle class. The upper class will always vote right-wing, because the left will give them nothing, and indeed will take away some of what they do have. The lower class will always vote left-wing, because the left-wing will at least stop them being homeless and hungry. It's the middle classes who are swinging voters, and who must be appealed to.
That applies in ordinary circumstances. In the extraordinary circumstance of a permanently declining real economy, who knows who'll vote for whom. But the above explains why governments across the West have destroyed the working class.
But this did not "evolve." It was a series of decisions by people acting in what they believed was their interest. And decisions can be changed. We can have a massive social welfare net, which is morally just, but very expensive. Or we can bring secure working class jobs back, which is a bit more practical and a lot cheaper.
I don't object to paying taxes to help the poor. I was poor once. But I recognise that there are limits, at some point all our debts will be called in. And the poor would rather work productively, given the chance. I would rather give them the chance.
Unfortunately, while there are socially liberal and conservative parties about these days, there are only economically liberal parties, no economically conservative parties.
-
Yes, when I said 'evolved', I meant that in a non-scientific and neutral manner. I wasn't suggesting that society 'had to' or 'was designed to' or 'should have' evolve(d) to the present situation, but it's what's happened, and now we face a series of choices about what we value.
-
Further:- https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-02/underemployment-in-australia-rising-while-unemployed-rate-drops/11057794 (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-02/underemployment-in-australia-rising-while-unemployed-rate-drops/11057794)
"We don't have a good understanding of why underemployment has risen so much," Professor Roger Wilkins of the University of Melbourne said.
"It seems that employers and their demand for part-time jobs has been growing."
Yes, we do Professor Wilkins. Over the last generation we have liberalised trade and labour laws, and deunionised workplaces. Low-skill work has declined in prevalence, and moved from the manufacturing to the service sectors, which by their nature are more likely to be part-time. Employers would rather have 100 people working 20 hours a week than 50 people working 40 hours a week, because people working less hours than they want and without permanent status are easier to control, they don't take holiday or sick leave (casuals in Australia don't get it, instead getting 25% more per hour), they don't speak up about workplace safety, and so on. Absent union and legal protections, this is what you get.
Economic liberalism has caused the decline in low-skilled full-time permanent jobs and the rise in part-time casual jobs. But there are not economically conservative parties, in favour of unions, protectionism, and so on.
No party in Australia or the US addresses this.
-
Kyle, that is what happens when your min wage is $18/hour (and climbing).
Many people's skills aren't worth that much. The median wage is about $30 per hour, and it's silly to think that someone in the 5th or 10th percentile of economic productiveness is going to be worth 60% as much as someone in the 50th percentile of productiveness; bell curves and normal distributions just don't work like that. In fact I'd be interested to see a standard deviation chart. Anyway, my point is that when you have an income floor that is quite high, it's going to create precariousness at the bottom end.
There's not much you can do about it short of reverting, as you say, to huge economic protectionism - I think that ship has sailed.
-
The encouragement to not take personal responsibility and point fingers at someone ELSE for your misfortune is really what gets me about the video in the OP. "My poverty is the fault of society, or rich CEOs, or lack of a trust fund, so there is nothing I can do about it."
(...)
I've always felt that one of the key differences between this forum and the rest of the Internet is the acknowledgement that no matter what your situation, YOU and ONLY YOU have the power to change your life for the better.
A man is a man and his circumstances. Someone smart said it, not only me.
Those who think that we control all our fate are clearly not touched by misfortune.
Saying "YOU have the power to change your life for the better" sounds OK, Saying that all depends on you isnt true.
Would you be the same if:
- You were born in Lesotho, Sudan or any other place where 2 dollars a day is the norm?
- You were born in a family of criminals, drug addicts or things like that?
- You were born with any disability?
- You were ran away by a pickup truck or got a hard disease?
- You were from a minority?
- You were raised really poor for american standards?
- For any reason, there was a massive global crisis or war?
Nothing of that depends on you and all of that shapes who you are or what you can accomplish.
So, yes, many thing are on us, but theres many things out of our control.
-
I think perhaps the best argument against a "supposed" meritocracy / neoliberal economy is that, even in a perfectly functioning economy, there is still injustice wrought by the fact that people have differing abilities/skills by birth. Someone born with a 70IQ or with a severe impairment is never going to have the life opportunities of someone with 130IQ who is healthy.
Strangely, progressives' dislike of anything that purports to quantify innate or shaped ability (e.g. IQ) also hinders their ability to argue against the social darwinism inherent in modern capitalism.
-
Oh good lord, bloop bloop, you're getting really tiresome here.
-
Kyle, that is what happens when your min wage is $18/hour (and climbing).
Not really. Other countries have high minimum wages, and don't have as much underemployment. Germany, for example, it's 9.19 euros an hour, which is $14.66 at today's exchange rates. In Switzerland it's $29.25ph.
Let's be honest: we could halve the minimum wage and the guy in the article wouldn't get 30hr pw instead of 15hr pw, his employer would just say, "bonza!" and pocket the difference, or spend it on something else.
Again: he's a hospital orderly. The hospital will have dozens of them. Why do they employ 100 doing 20hr pw when they could employ 50 doing 40hr pw? It's the same total hours, the same wage cost either way, so why the difference? Because it keeps the employees malleable, and the law and lack of unions allows that.
There's not much you can do about it short of reverting, as you say, to huge economic protectionism - I think that ship has sailed.
The communists thought that worldwide socialism was inevitable, too. No system, no ideology lasts forever. Eventually people get sick of its failures and try something else. The elites and those who benefit from the system have to be protected from themselves, saying, "nothing can be changed, this is great, why are you complaining?" is an invitation to revolution. Bismarck got it, politicians these days aren't that smart.
-
Kyle, that is what happens when your min wage is $18/hour (and climbing).
Not really. Other countries have high minimum wages, and don't have as much underemployment. Germany, for example, it's 9.19 euros an hour, which is $14.66 at today's exchange rates. In Switzerland it's $29.25ph.
Let's be honest: we could halve the minimum wage and the guy in the article wouldn't get 30hr pw instead of 15hr pw, his employer would just say, "bonza!" and pocket the difference, or spend it on something else.
Again: he's a hospital orderly. The hospital will have dozens of them. Why do they employ 100 doing 20hr pw when they could employ 50 doing 40hr pw? It's the same total hours, the same wage cost either way, so why the difference? Because it keeps the employees malleable, and the law and lack of unions allows that.
There's not much you can do about it short of reverting, as you say, to huge economic protectionism - I think that ship has sailed.
The communists thought that worldwide socialism was inevitable, too. No system, no ideology lasts forever. Eventually people get sick of its failures and try something else. The elites and those who benefit from the system have to be protected from themselves, saying, "nothing can be changed, this is great, why are you complaining?" is an invitation to revolution. Bismarck got it, politicians these days aren't that smart.
In the US, employers are more likely to have more part time employees because various laws and regulations have made full time employees far more expensive. As a result, there are a lot of instances where 20 people working 20 hours per week is cheaper than 10 people working 40 hours per week. It’s not a rich folks controlling the poor type thing. It’s a “this restaurant will lose money and be forced to close if we take the more expensive route” type thing.
Unfortunately, low skilled and unskilled work frequently doesn’t have enough economic return to justify the expensive minimum wage and benefit requirements imposed by various state, federal, and local laws. As result,you either don’t hire anyone or you hire part time workers.
My first job was in high school stocking shelves and cleaning a local eatery. That job doesn’t exist anymore. The minimum wage doubled here in a relatively short time. The elderly owner stays late and cleans the place now. The existing workers stock shelves during the slower hours. Some kid isn’t getting his or her first job experience, isn’t getting training or moving up the ranks because it’s too expensive to justify the cost.
I think you’re refusing to see that policies you advocate can have negative consequences in addition to perceived positives.
-
Oh good lord, bloop bloop, you're getting really tiresome here.
Thanks for your feedback.
-
I think perhaps the best argument against a "supposed" meritocracy / neoliberal economy is that, even in a perfectly functioning economy, there is still injustice wrought by the fact that people have differing abilities/skills by birth. Someone born with a 70IQ or with a severe impairment is never going to have the life opportunities of someone with 130IQ who is healthy.
Strangely, progressives' dislike of anything that purports to quantify innate or shaped ability (e.g. IQ) also hinders their ability to argue against the social darwinism inherent in modern capitalism.
Can you show some examples of "progressive's dislike of anything that purports to quantify innate or shaped ability" that you claim?
-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/17/dumbing-down-or-need-better--smarter-measure
-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/17/dumbing-down-or-need-better--smarter-measure
Not entirely sure what you're getting at here, is the author the progressive who dislikes IQ tests?
Regardless, I'm sure we can find examples of what you've claimed but examples don't prove the absoluteness of what you said.
I would consider myself progressive on most issues but I don't dislike tests or studies that purport to quantify innate or shaped ability. Statements where you lump huge groups of people together for criticism are a conversation killer.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/17/dumbing-down-or-need-better--smarter-measure
Did you read the link you've posted? This is an argument that the particular IQ tests under scrutiny are not very effective at measuring intelligence, not that there should be no measurement of intelligence.
-
So I assume we all saw JP Morgan's rather tone deaf tweet?
(https://static.adweek.com/adweek.com-prod/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/chase-tweet-hed-content-2-2019.jpg)
-
So I assume we all saw JP Morgan's rather tone deaf tweet?
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/antimustachian-wall-of-shame-and-comedy/chase-gives-financial-advice-and-people-demand-an-apology-for-it/
-
Can you show some examples of "progressive's dislike of anything that purports to quantify innate or shaped ability" that you claim?
This meme drives me up a wall. I'm a progressive who spends a lot of time annotating my arguments with government data, only to be dismissed by people who shoot from the hip. Such is life though.
-
So I assume we all saw JP Morgan's rather tone deaf tweet?
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/antimustachian-wall-of-shame-and-comedy/chase-gives-financial-advice-and-people-demand-an-apology-for-it/
Thank you!
-
So I assume we all saw JP Morgan's rather tone deaf tweet?
(https://static.adweek.com/adweek.com-prod/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/chase-tweet-hed-content-2-2019.jpg)
In keeping with this thread, it would be interesting to know if Jamie Dimon ever did any of these things on his way to FI.
-
P.S. I've sometimes wondered if this is a whole mindset that starts from how we now educate our children. When your kid loses a toy and cries, you are supposed to commiserate with them so that they feel your empathy and it strengthens the parent-child bond. You are apparently not supposed to point out that they are responsible for their own toys and should take better care of things that are important to them.
A "good" parent will probably do Both of these things. It doesn't have to be either/ or....
**My first job was in high school stocking shelves and cleaning a local eatery. That job doesn’t exist anymore. The minimum wage doubled here in a relatively short time. The elderly owner stays late and cleans the place now. The existing workers stock shelves during the slower hours. Some kid isn’t getting his or her first job experience, isn’t getting training or moving up the ranks because it’s too expensive to justify the cost.**
The job went away, not the work. The shelves need to be stocked and the floors mopped, to meet health standards, and to insure customers return for more items / future meals . The owner was possibly frivilously wasting money by hiring young MrUpwardlyMobile to do the work years ago - or- the owner is somewhat inept at running the business currently; by not being able to afford a worker to perform the lowest levels of responsibility within the business and taking those items upon themselves.
What did the former wait staff/cooks [?] used to do during slower hours ? Maybe the eatery had a better customer base back then, maybe the menu is stale and table turnover is worse today...
-
In keeping with this thread, it would be interesting to know if Jamie Dimon ever did any of these things on his way to FI.
Dimon is the son of a banking executive. He attended a prestigious and expensive prep school in his youth.
I have no doubt he's an intelligent and capable business leader who brings a lot of value to JPM shareholders. But I think it's safe to say that mundane personal sacrifice is not a part of his overall story.
-
Didn't MrUpwardlyMobile specify that the minimum wage doubled? The owner could afford to hire a highschool kid for, say, $7 an hour. He probably can't justify the expense at $14 an hour, unless his business has boomed.
I would hire someone to clean my house for $100. I wouldn't do it for $200. At some point the returns are not worth the extra money. And that is one less job on the market. (I did in fact recently let go of my cleaners because Seattle's wage increase made it too expensive to justify having someone else clean my toilets.)
My first job paid $9 an hour. I actually probably provided much more value than what I was paid, since I was handling the entire Internet order department of a small computer store on my own, and after I left they hired two people to replace me. But I don't begrudge the low salary, as I had zero experience, was a kid with low expenses, and the job provided valuable life experience. The teenage versions of MrUpwardlyMobile and I are the "target market" for these kinds of low paying jobs, not 30-something parents with time and financial obligations. When you try to make employers compensate for people with higher living expenses, some of those jobs are just going to be gone for everyone.
There are definitely people who need to work these jobs who fall outside the "target market", and that is exactly what a social safety net is for.
-
A man is a man and his circumstances. Someone smart said it, not only me.
Those who think that we control all our fate are clearly not touched by misfortune.
Saying "YOU have the power to change your life for the better" sounds OK, Saying that all depends on you isnt true.
Would you be the same if:
- You were born in Lesotho, Sudan or any other place where 2 dollars a day is the norm?
- You were born in a family of criminals, drug addicts or things like that?
- You were born with any disability?
- You were ran away by a pickup truck or got a hard disease?
- You were from a minority?
- You were raised really poor for american standards?
- For any reason, there was a massive global crisis or war?
Nothing of that depends on you and all of that shapes who you are or what you can accomplish.
So, yes, many thing are on us, but theres many things out of our control.
I've written in earlier posts about my views on the inherent inequality in nature, and that it is an inevitable fact of life. I do subscribe more to social Darwinism than the goal of trying to achieve ideal socialism, as I believe the latter doesn't exist.
Incidentally, I have a child with special needs who most definitely did not win the genetics lottery. There's a good chance that he may never be independent enough to support himself when he grows up. But he is also fortunate in that he was born into a family who can afford expensive therapies and can support him for the rest of his life if need be.
This balance of fortune and misfortune is reflected in the government programs that exist to support people like him. He qualifies for some programs based on disability alone, but not for others due to our family income. I think this is very fair. When he grows up, I would not expect any employer to hire him or pay a "living" wage if he could not provide the corresponding value.
I've had my share of head-wall-banging while dealing with the social safety net system through the years, so I believe that there are many improvements that can be made and inefficiencies reduced. A better corporate tax policy will provide more funds. I don't see how more government regulation of corporations is going to help anyone. The effort seems like it would be better spent working on improving our social safety nets.
-
I agree that many companies take advantage of employees by only paying low minimum wages. At the same time I'm sure the companies realize that there is a cost in employee turnover (recruitment and selection costs, training costs, risk of costs associated with terminating a poor employee). I'd like to see a Minimum Raise law that would increase the minimum that could be paid to an employee as they accrue experience. Current minimum wage is probably OK for starting wages, but requiring a raise of $0.25/hour for every 320 hours of experience until reaching a living wage might not be a bad idea.
-
A man is a man and his circumstances. Someone smart said it, not only me.
Those who think that we control all our fate are clearly not touched by misfortune.
Saying "YOU have the power to change your life for the better" sounds OK, Saying that all depends on you isnt true.
Would you be the same if:
- You were born in Lesotho, Sudan or any other place where 2 dollars a day is the norm?
- You were born in a family of criminals, drug addicts or things like that?
- You were born with any disability?
- You were ran away by a pickup truck or got a hard disease?
- You were from a minority?
- You were raised really poor for american standards?
- For any reason, there was a massive global crisis or war?
Nothing of that depends on you and all of that shapes who you are or what you can accomplish.
So, yes, many thing are on us, but theres many things out of our control.
I've written in earlier posts about my views on the inherent inequality in nature, and that it is an inevitable fact of life. I do subscribe more to social Darwinism than the goal of trying to achieve ideal socialism, as I believe the latter doesn't exist.
Incidentally, I have a child with special needs who most definitely did not win the genetics lottery. There's a good chance that he may never be independent enough to support himself when he grows up. But he is also fortunate in that he was born into a family who can afford expensive therapies and can support him for the rest of his life if need be.
This balance of fortune and misfortune is reflected in the government programs that exist to support people like him. He qualifies for some programs based on disability alone, but not for others due to our family income. I think this is very fair. When he grows up, I would not expect any employer to hire him or pay a "living" wage if he could not provide the corresponding value.
I've had my share of head-wall-banging while dealing with the social safety net system through the years, so I believe that there are many improvements that can be made and inefficiencies reduced. A better corporate tax policy will provide more funds. I don't see how more government regulation of corporations is going to help anyone. The effort seems like it would be better spent working on improving our social safety nets.
Thank you for admitting this. Why is natural selection viewed in our current society (by some) as an evil force that must be destroyed? It serves a vital purpose, not only from a genetic standpoint, but also from a behavioral/sociological one as well.
-
Thank you for admitting this. Why is natural selection viewed in our current society (by some) as an evil force that must be destroyed? It serves a vital purpose, not only from a genetic standpoint, but also from a behavioral/sociological one as well.
I think it's pretty suspect to apply principles of natural selection to the outsized influence that global banking has. And I don't think many people actually want to go down that road anyway. Social contracts and all.
Statistically speaking, I'm probably bigger than you. I think I might just come over to your house and take all of your belongings because nature decided to make me big. Maybe that upsets you. Maybe you want to make an appeal to the rule of law. To the police or the courts. To which I would ask, why are you interfering with natural selection?
-
A man is a man and his circumstances. Someone smart said it, not only me.
Those who think that we control all our fate are clearly not touched by misfortune.
Saying "YOU have the power to change your life for the better" sounds OK, Saying that all depends on you isnt true.
Would you be the same if:
- You were born in Lesotho, Sudan or any other place where 2 dollars a day is the norm?
- You were born in a family of criminals, drug addicts or things like that?
- You were born with any disability?
- You were ran away by a pickup truck or got a hard disease?
- You were from a minority?
- You were raised really poor for american standards?
- For any reason, there was a massive global crisis or war?
Nothing of that depends on you and all of that shapes who you are or what you can accomplish.
So, yes, many thing are on us, but theres many things out of our control.
I've written in earlier posts about my views on the inherent inequality in nature, and that it is an inevitable fact of life. I do subscribe more to social Darwinism than the goal of trying to achieve ideal socialism, as I believe the latter doesn't exist.
Incidentally, I have a child with special needs who most definitely did not win the genetics lottery. There's a good chance that he may never be independent enough to support himself when he grows up. But he is also fortunate in that he was born into a family who can afford expensive therapies and can support him for the rest of his life if need be.
This balance of fortune and misfortune is reflected in the government programs that exist to support people like him. He qualifies for some programs based on disability alone, but not for others due to our family income. I think this is very fair. When he grows up, I would not expect any employer to hire him or pay a "living" wage if he could not provide the corresponding value.
I've had my share of head-wall-banging while dealing with the social safety net system through the years, so I believe that there are many improvements that can be made and inefficiencies reduced. A better corporate tax policy will provide more funds. I don't see how more government regulation of corporations is going to help anyone. The effort seems like it would be better spent working on improving our social safety nets.
Thank you for admitting this. Why is natural selection viewed in our current society (by some) as an evil force that must be destroyed? It serves a vital purpose, not only from a genetic standpoint, but also from a behavioral/sociological one as well.
From a behavioral standpoint if we were really obeying natural selection her son would starve to death as a non-productive member of society. When you won the genetic and skills lottery and have enough money to prevent natural selection from ever impacting your loved ones it's a lot easier to support.
-
Thank you for admitting this. Why is natural selection viewed in our current society (by some) as an evil force that must be destroyed? It serves a vital purpose, not only from a genetic standpoint, but also from a behavioral/sociological one as well.
I think it's pretty suspect to apply principles of natural selection to the outsized influence that global banking has. And I don't think many people actually want to go down that road anyway. Social contracts and all.
Statistically speaking, I'm probably bigger than you. I think I might just come over to your house and TRY TO take all of your belongings because nature decided to make me big. Maybe that upsets you. Maybe you want to make an appeal to the rule of law. To the police or the courts. To which I would ask, why are you interfering with natural selection?
Fixed it. Your response was readily predictable. My edit of your response now restores the forces of natural selection. Proceed as you may.
-
But did you factor in that my dad can beat up your dad? ;)
All joking and silly hypothetical aside, I make a lot of money pushing numbers around on spreadsheets and I've never thought of it as the natural order rewarding me.
Was it social darwinism for the Standard Oil cartel to engage in price fixing and other anti-competitive practices? Maybe it was. There were a lot of smart guys involved, and they were able to secure and defend their claim on resources for a long time. Survival of the fittest right? But eventually, as a society, we realized that cartels, trusts, and monopolies were only good for the folks involved, and bad for everyone else.
We're at a similar point today. Who benefits from wealthy corporations paying low wages and getting tax breaks? The wealthiest 10% of households who own nearly all the capital.
-
From a behavioral standpoint if we were really obeying natural selection her son would starve to death as a non-productive member of society. When you won the genetic and skills lottery and have enough money to prevent natural selection from ever impacting your loved ones it's a lot easier to support.
Its easy to like the game when you're winning it.
I'll get in this discussion again in few years.
By 2028 China will surpass US as the biggest economy of the world.
By 2040/2050, India will take the second place.
AI will take lots of jobs.
Big companies will get huge and get most of the market from small caps (look how they enter in all areas).
Theres full-times turning in side gigs everyday.
Sooner or later another big crisis will come.
Those are not my says, can get you data on all that.
Seriously, some things should be reassessed in my opinion, world is changing fast and we will all need a safety net and cohesive society.
-
I don't think anyone is advocating for complete anarchy here. What we disagree on is the degree and extent of social safety nets and government regulation.
China, despite being purportedly socialist, has much less in the way of social safety nets than the U.S. If my son was born into a destitute family in China, he'd probably starve. In the U.S., if social services were aware of him, he would not. Moreover, he would be eligible for Medicaid and therapies to help him cope with his disability. I point this out to illustrate that we already have many systems in place to help the disadvantaged in our society, as we should. And we should continue to work on improving them so that those who need help can get it without having to jump through a million hoops or dealing with endless bureaucracy. But should we go so far as to try to achieve a utopia where everyone has the exact same chances in life? I would argue that this unattainable goal is not even something we should be striving for, as it comes with a slew of unintended consequences that ends up with everyone worse off.
-
P.S. I've sometimes wondered if this is a whole mindset that starts from how we now educate our children. When your kid loses a toy and cries, you are supposed to commiserate with them so that they feel your empathy and it strengthens the parent-child bond. You are apparently not supposed to point out that they are responsible for their own toys and should take better care of things that are important to them.
A "good" parent will probably do Both of these things. It doesn't have to be either/ or....
**My first job was in high school stocking shelves and cleaning a local eatery. That job doesn’t exist anymore. The minimum wage doubled here in a relatively short time. The elderly owner stays late and cleans the place now. The existing workers stock shelves during the slower hours. Some kid isn’t getting his or her first job experience, isn’t getting training or moving up the ranks because it’s too expensive to justify the cost.**
The job went away, not the work. The shelves need to be stocked and the floors mopped, to meet health standards, and to insure customers return for more items / future meals . The owner was possibly frivilously wasting money by hiring young MrUpwardlyMobile to do the work years ago - or- the owner is somewhat inept at running the business currently; by not being able to afford a worker to perform the lowest levels of responsibility within the business and taking those items upon themselves.
What did the former wait staff/cooks [?] used to do during slower hours ? Maybe the eatery had a better customer base back then, maybe the menu is stale and table turnover is worse today...
By way of reference
$7/hr x 25 hrs per week x 52 weeks per year = $9100
$14/hr x 25 hrs per week x 52 weeks per year = $18,200
If you add up all the various other costs associated with the raise, it’s an enormous difference in cost to the employer and that really doesn’t account for the various other costs and taxes. Not every business has high margins.
-
I think what really gets me about this whole thread is the just utter disregard for personal accountability that MSM and most left-leaning commentators put on the situation.
-Unemployments has pretty much never been lower
-Wages have pretty much never been higher when including benefits
-Benefits continue to be more and more generous every year
So if someone cannot make it today, it says a lot more about that person than the country.
I am sure that some people genuinely fall through the cracks, but the fact is that MOST people in unfortunate situations put themselves there - and no one talks in a way that holds them accountable because its simply frowned upon to do so. Its always a sob story with excuses and rationals.
-
I think what really gets me about this whole thread is the just utter disregard for personal accountability that MSM and most left-leaning commentators put on the situation.
-Unemployments has pretty much never been lower
-Wages have pretty much never been higher when including benefits
-Benefits continue to be more and more generous every year
So if someone cannot make it today, it says a lot more about that person than the country.
I am sure that some people genuinely fall through the cracks, but the fact is that MOST people in unfortunate situations put themselves there - and no one talks in a way that holds them accountable because its simply frowned upon to do so. Its always a sob story with excuses and rationals.
- housing costs are higher than ever
- medical insurance/ medical care costs have skyrocketed
are you even trying?
do you even...know people outside your bubble?
-
It's a lot easier to create an enemy, blaming the big bad system in place, than to place blame on individuals. I understand that sentiment in society, where people simply don't comprehend finances. In these forums, however, I find it very confusing. We are a collection of people who have personally done very well for ourselves, thanks to the principles taught by MMM and others. Everyone in here should understand that the majority of people have the same opportunity to be successful that we have. Instead, I see a lot of people who don't think others can do what we've done, instead defaulting to blaming political parties or corporations and absolving individuals of all guilt.
It's a lot easier to change the actions of individuals than to change the system in place.
-
Weird.
I find that it's a lot easier to place blame on individuals than the system. After all, I am lucky enough that the system worked really well for me. If a straight white guy from a good family who placed value on education and a series of generally pretty good interactions with the establishment that helped guide me to my current moderately successful place in society . . . why . . . certainly that should all hold true for every other individual! They must just be lazy. That's why they aren't doing as well. To break out of that smug and relatively unfounded sense of self importance is hard. It means recognizing that you might not be as great as you thought you were, and that other more deserving people might not be doing as well as you are.
It's scary to think that maybe the system that worked so well for me isn't optimal, and might need to be changed. As mentioned, it's very hard to change the system in place . . . but we are not servants of that system. It is beholden to us, as the people who keep it functioning. If it's broken we need to focus on repairing it, regardless of the difficulty.
-
Weird.
I find that it's a lot easier to place blame on individuals than the system. After all, I am lucky enough that the system worked really well for me. If a straight white guy from a good family who placed value on education and a series of generally pretty good interactions with the establishment that helped guide me to my current moderately successful place in society . . . why . . . certainly that should all hold true for every other individual! They must just be lazy. That's why they aren't doing as well. To break out of that smug and relatively unfounded sense of self importance is hard. It means recognizing that you might not be as great as you thought you were, and that other more deserving people might not be doing as well as you are.
It's scary to think that maybe the system that worked so well for me isn't optimal, and might need to be changed. As mentioned, it's very hard to change the system in place . . . but we are not servants of that system. It is beholden to us, as the people who keep it functioning. If it's broken we need to focus on repairing it, regardless of the difficulty.
I also agree that the United States in particular is very biased towards blaming the individual. Research into the "Fundamental Attribution Error" seems to confirm this. Anecdotally, it's like pulling teeth sometimes to get perfectly nice, perfectly smart people to even acknowledge that systemic racism or sexism is a thing.
-
I'm not white and was even homeless at one point in my life, yet here I am, doing quite well.
I guess the system in place didn't do a good enough job suppressing me. That's probably why I don't have much sympathy for people who blame their circumstances on outside forces. Can it be harder to succeed depending on life's circumstances? Of course. But you will always get better results by focusing on how you can improve the individual, rather than trying to change the system.
-
I think what really gets me about this whole thread is the just utter disregard for personal accountability that MSM and most left-leaning commentators put on the situation.
-Unemployments has pretty much never been lower
-Wages have pretty much never been higher when including benefits
-Benefits continue to be more and more generous every year
So if someone cannot make it today, it says a lot more about that person than the country.
I am sure that some people genuinely fall through the cracks, but the fact is that MOST people in unfortunate situations put themselves there - and no one talks in a way that holds them accountable because its simply frowned upon to do so. Its always a sob story with excuses and rationals.
- housing costs are higher than ever
- medical insurance/ medical care costs have skyrocketed
are you even trying?
do you even...know people outside your bubble?
MM1970,
Adjusted for inflation (which includes housing and medical costs), wages are near their all time high. Wages adjusted for inflation have been on a steady upswing since the early 1990's. Wages were decreasing only between the 1970s and 1990s.
When you include employer provided benefits, wages ARE at an all time high.
Yet the bitching about how everything is terrible only started recently. Its just a narrative that has caught on which has very little basis in reality when looking at numbers.
-
I'm not white and was even homeless at one point in my life, yet here I am, doing quite well.
I guess the system in place didn't do a good enough job suppressing me. That's probably why I don't have much sympathy for people who blame their circumstances on outside forces. Can it be harder to succeed depending on life's circumstances? Of course. But you will always get better results by focusing on how you can improve the individual, rather than trying to change the system.
Improving as an individual wouldn't help a woman become an engineer fifty years ago. It wouldn't matter if she was the smartest person in the world. She would be discounted at the interview and not hired because of her sex . . . since the system fundamentally undervalued women in technical careers. Therefore, you do not always get better results by focusing on the individual.
FWIW, I don't have sympathy for people who blame their circumstances on outside forces. But there don't appear to be any of those people in this thread. Instead, there are people who can see outside forces that hold people back, and want to change that. That is not a carte blanche to not try in life. It's an attempt to help as many people as possible to become productive and contributing members of society.
-
I'm not white and was even homeless at one point in my life, yet here I am, doing quite well.
I guess the system in place didn't do a good enough job suppressing me. That's probably why I don't have much sympathy for people who blame their circumstances on outside forces. Can it be harder to succeed depending on life's circumstances? Of course. But you will always get better results by focusing on how you can improve the individual, rather than trying to change the system.
On a person to person level, I agree with this. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to change the system to be better or more equitable. Changing the system and self-improvement aren't mutually exclusive.
-
I think what really gets me about this whole thread is the just utter disregard for personal accountability that MSM and most left-leaning commentators put on the situation.
-Unemployments has pretty much never been lower
-Wages have pretty much never been higher when including benefits
-Benefits continue to be more and more generous every year
So if someone cannot make it today, it says a lot more about that person than the country.
I am sure that some people genuinely fall through the cracks, but the fact is that MOST people in unfortunate situations put themselves there - and no one talks in a way that holds them accountable because its simply frowned upon to do so. Its always a sob story with excuses and rationals.
- housing costs are higher than ever
- medical insurance/ medical care costs have skyrocketed
are you even trying?
do you even...know people outside your bubble?
MM1970,
Adjusted for inflation (which includes housing and medical costs), wages are near their all time high. Wages adjusted for inflation have been on a steady upswing since the early 1990's. Wages were decreasing only between the 1970s and 1990s.
When you include employer provided benefits, wages ARE at an all time high.
Yet the bitching about how everything is terrible only started recently. Its just a narrative that has caught on which has very little basis in reality when looking at numbers.
Too bad cost of living increased even more, crippling the purchasing power of the near all-time high wages.
-
MM1970,
Adjusted for inflation (which includes housing and medical costs), wages are near their all time high. Wages adjusted for inflation have been on a steady upswing since the early 1990's. Wages were decreasing only between the 1970s and 1990s.
When you include employer provided benefits, wages ARE at an all time high.
Yet the bitching about how everything is terrible only started recently. Its just a narrative that has caught on which has very little basis in reality when looking at numbers.
Things should get better over time. It'd be alarming if they didn't. But I reject this as a rationale for why the few should take a larger and larger share of the productivity gains that everyone contributes to.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/wkyeng.t01.htm Real median full time weekly earnings have risen by just 3% since 2010. Meanwhile, real earnings for S&P500 companies are 10% above their pre-recession highs.
Also, people have been fighting and complaining for better treatment since forever. So much of what we have is built upon those petitioned for better treatment. I say join in so that things are even more equitable for the people who come next.
-
MM1970,
Adjusted for inflation (which includes housing and medical costs), wages are near their all time high. Wages adjusted for inflation have been on a steady upswing since the early 1990's. Wages were decreasing only between the 1970s and 1990s.
When you include employer provided benefits, wages ARE at an all time high.
Yet the bitching about how everything is terrible only started recently. Its just a narrative that has caught on which has very little basis in reality when looking at numbers.
Things should get better over time. It'd be alarming if they didn't. But I reject this as a rationale for why the few should take a larger and larger share of the productivity gains that everyone contributes to.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/wkyeng.t01.htm Real median full time weekly earnings have risen by just 3% since 2010. Meanwhile, real earnings for S&P500 companies are 10% above their pre-recession highs.
Also, people have been fighting and complaining for better treatment since forever. So much of what we have is built upon those petitioned for better treatment. I say join in so that things are even more equitable for the people who come next.
Sure I buy into the fact that everything could be better. I buy into the fact that everyone should have equal opportunity. I even buy into having strong social safety nets such that people do not fall through the cracks.
What I have a problem with is a narrative that ignores reality to paint current day as a barren waste-land filled with misery and despair due to everything being worse today for the every-man. I don't think its productive for anyone to start a conversation from a place that paints a false reality.
Are the rich getting richer? Yes. Is trickle down economics working for the middle class? Also Yes. Is it working to the extent we want? Debatable.
-
Sure I buy into the fact that everything could be better. I buy into the fact that everyone should have equal opportunity. I even buy into having strong social safety nets such that people do not fall through the cracks.
What I have a problem with is a narrative that ignores reality to paint current day as a barren waste-land filled with misery and despair due to everything being worse today for the every-man. I don't think its productive for anyone to start a conversation from a place that paints a false reality.
Are the rich getting richer? Yes. Is trickle down economics working for the middle class? Also Yes. Is it working to the extent we want? Debatable.
I think the bold is a strawman.
Is trickle down economics working for the middle class? Also Yes.
I guess I'd ask you to define "working". I would say that middle class life is getting better in spite of trickle down economics, but perhaps that's beyond the scope of this discussion.
Incidentally, the latest round of United States trickle down economics, the TCJA, was ushered in on the strength of a movement whose central tenet was all about how everything today is worse for the every man. You may have your wires crossed with regards to who is talking about barren wastelands of misery and despair.
-
Didn't MrUpwardlyMobile specify that the minimum wage doubled? The owner could afford to hire a highschool kid for, say, $7 an hour. He probably can't justify the expense at $14 an hour, unless his business has boomed.
In Australia, the minimum wage varies by age. The argument is that kids are less productive than adults, need closer supervision and so on. We can argue about individuals and the exact fraction, but it's broadly true.
The adult rate is $18.93ph, but,
Under 16yo 36.8% of that or $6.97
16yo 47.3%
17yo 57.8%
18yo 68.3%
19yo 82.5%
20yo 97.7%
and 21yo and over have the full rate.
So there are still plenty of young people getting their first job. The bad side is that shifts at McDs mysteriously dry up as the kid hits 18 or so. But they're getting their start into the employed world.
MrUpwardlyMobile's business buddy probably just ran things badly. Even in countries with no minimum wage at all, businesses still die. Sometimes people just aren't very good at their jobs, including running the business they've run for years. As a small business owner, I am constantly astounded at how badly people do things and yet still manage to make money. Occasionally it catches up with them. Of course, it is never their fault.
It's amusing to me that the same people who preach about personal responsibility when it comes to employees, when it comes to business owners say, "oh but it's the laws... the regulations... the red tape... taxes... bad staff..." Why is my success or failure all down to me unless I'm running a business, then while my success still shows my brilliance, if I fail then it's The System?
The truth is that systems - whether official systems like government, or unofficial systems like Old Boy's Networks - can help or hinder people, but people do have responsibility for themselves, too. And if I have much, then I have a responsibility to give back. All the great religious and humanist traditions speak much about charity. In my faith of Judaism, the greatest charity is to give a person a job. One who takes over a company with many employees has a profound responsibility. "Cut 100 staff" may mean destroying 100 households, probably a few divorces, even a suicide or two - even if it means a $1 million bonus for the CEO. Typically, CEOs come from backgrounds where they did not have to drag themselves up by their bootstraps, so they don't appreciate the power of their position to make or destroy lives.
There's an old racist joke that's also an anti-racist joke, if you think about it. "How do you stop a [racial expletive] from drowning? Take your foot off his neck." There are certainly factors holding people down, and some people are helped up, and others are not.
-
"MrUpwardlyMobile's business buddy probably just ran things badly."
I'm not sure about that. One of my buddies runs a cafe and he won't hire anyone over 21 (although he'll keep existing employees if they're good) because he doesn't believe Australians in most low-end jobs are worth what they're paid.
I tend to agree. On the open market, I think a lot of service jobs are truly worth about $12-$15/hour (that is what you get freelancing/gig economy/Uber) and that's all I'd be willing to pay if I ran that sort of business. I think the inflated minimum wage means that most jobs up to about $25/hour are being artificially boosted by the min wage. The min wage is only $18-$19/hour but obviously it has a flow-in effect to all jobs paying around $20/$25/hour
I think most people in that pay bracket aren't worth their nominal wage when you factor in ease of off-shoring, contracting and using gig economy.
You're not a bad businessman if you think this way. There's no law that says to be a good businessman you have to do X or Y or Z. All you have to do is follow the law. You can choose to hire young people, use contractors, take advantage of the gig economy, offshore (in certain industries), do the work yourself, or do it via family or associates. There are many ways to run a business.
-
"MrUpwardlyMobile's business buddy probably just ran things badly."
I'm not sure about that. One of my buddies runs a cafe and he won't hire anyone over 21 (although he'll keep existing employees if they're good) because he doesn't believe Australians in most low-end jobs are worth what they're paid.
I tend to agree. On the open market, I think a lot of service jobs are truly worth about $12-$15/hour (that is what you get freelancing/gig economy/Uber) and that's all I'd be willing to pay if I ran that sort of business. I think the inflated minimum wage means that most jobs up to about $25/hour are being artificially boosted by the min wage. The min wage is only $18-$19/hour but obviously it has a flow-in effect to all jobs paying around $20/$25/hour
I think most people in that pay bracket aren't worth their nominal wage when you factor in ease of off-shoring, contracting and using gig economy.
You're not a bad businessman if you think this way. There's no law that says to be a good businessman you have to do X or Y or Z. All you have to do is follow the law. You can choose to hire young people, use contractors, take advantage of the gig economy, offshore (in certain industries), do the work yourself, or do it via family or associates. There are many ways to run a business.
If what keeps your friend bussiness alive is that percentage from the young employees paycheck, it must be a hell of a bussiness.
There will be a time where many of this toughts "I think most people in that pay bracket aren't worth their nominal wage when you factor in ease of off-shoring, contracting and using gig economy." will backfire.
Some of the people that think this can easily be called in the office in a few years to learn that they "aren't worth their nominal wage when you factor in ease of off-shoring, contracting and using gig economy", so you're out.
-
"MrUpwardlyMobile's business buddy probably just ran things badly."
I'm not sure about that. One of my buddies runs a cafe and he won't hire anyone over 21 (although he'll keep existing employees if they're good) because he doesn't believe Australians in most low-end jobs are worth what they're paid.
I tend to agree. On the open market, I think a lot of service jobs are truly worth about $12-$15/hour (that is what you get freelancing/gig economy/Uber) and that's all I'd be willing to pay if I ran that sort of business. I think the inflated minimum wage means that most jobs up to about $25/hour are being artificially boosted by the min wage. The min wage is only $18-$19/hour but obviously it has a flow-in effect to all jobs paying around $20/$25/hour
I think most people in that pay bracket aren't worth their nominal wage when you factor in ease of off-shoring, contracting and using gig economy.
You're not a bad businessman if you think this way. There's no law that says to be a good businessman you have to do X or Y or Z. All you have to do is follow the law. You can choose to hire young people, use contractors, take advantage of the gig economy, offshore (in certain industries), do the work yourself, or do it via family or associates. There are many ways to run a business.
If what keeps your friend bussiness alive is that percentage from the young employees paycheck, it must be a hell of a bussiness.
There will be a time where many of this toughts "I think most people in that pay bracket aren't worth their nominal wage when you factor in ease of off-shoring, contracting and using gig economy." will backfire.
Some of the people that think this can easily be called in the office in a few years to learn that they "aren't worth their nominal wage when you factor in ease of off-shoring, contracting and using gig economy", so you're out.
It’s not the difference in the business failing or not. It’s whether the work suddenly became worth more than double the cost. It’s not worth double the cost so the job doesn’t exist. The work is divided amongst the owner and existing employees.
-
"MrUpwardlyMobile's business buddy probably just ran things badly."
I'm not sure about that. One of my buddies runs a cafe and he won't hire anyone over 21 (although he'll keep existing employees if they're good) because he doesn't believe Australians in most low-end jobs are worth what they're paid.
I tend to agree. On the open market, I think a lot of service jobs are truly worth about $12-$15/hour (that is what you get freelancing/gig economy/Uber) and that's all I'd be willing to pay if I ran that sort of business. I think the inflated minimum wage means that most jobs up to about $25/hour are being artificially boosted by the min wage. The min wage is only $18-$19/hour but obviously it has a flow-in effect to all jobs paying around $20/$25/hour
I think most people in that pay bracket aren't worth their nominal wage when you factor in ease of off-shoring, contracting and using gig economy.
You're not a bad businessman if you think this way. There's no law that says to be a good businessman you have to do X or Y or Z. All you have to do is follow the law. You can choose to hire young people, use contractors, take advantage of the gig economy, offshore (in certain industries), do the work yourself, or do it via family or associates. There are many ways to run a business.
If what keeps your friend bussiness alive is that percentage from the young employees paycheck, it must be a hell of a bussiness.
There will be a time where many of this toughts "I think most people in that pay bracket aren't worth their nominal wage when you factor in ease of off-shoring, contracting and using gig economy." will backfire.
Some of the people that think this can easily be called in the office in a few years to learn that they "aren't worth their nominal wage when you factor in ease of off-shoring, contracting and using gig economy", so you're out.
Again, no one ever said that this is what keeps a business alive. This is what keeps a business optimally profitable.
As for "there will be a time when the cows come home" - the usual rejoinder to the pro-business argument - I suspect a lot of us are more than happy to take that risk. I reckon someone with good smarts, business skills and intelligence is always going to be the one offshoring, not the one offshored.
-
I'm not sure about that. One of my buddies runs a cafe and he won't hire anyone over 21 (although he'll keep existing employees if they're good) because he doesn't believe Australians in most low-end jobs are worth what they're paid.
I was once friends with a guy who told us that everyone he worked with was an idiot, and his boss was stupid.
"Sounds terrible. You should get a new job."
"Yeah, I will."
(Three months later).
"How's the new job?"
"Everyone I work with is an idiot, and my boss is stupid."
"Mate... maybe it's you."
He didn't like that much.
And we've all known the guy who went through a lot of women...
"They're all sluts, mate, all bitches."
"All of them? Or is it you?"
"Fuck off, cunt."
The common element in all the employees your buddy has had is... him. Some people are able to get the best from people, some aren't. I say this as someone who has run teams in the army, in commercial kitchens, and in gyms - and I've done it badly, and done it well.
There are many ways to run a business.
There are. And most new businesses fail. There are fewer ways to run a successful business. Generally speaking, if someone tells you "all my successes are to my credit, all my failures are someone else's fault," you know he's failing. In fine, one of the ways to fail is to go through a lot of staff in a short time, not train anyone or offer them secure work with a career path, and then just say, "well all X are lazy and stupid, plus the minimum wage is too high."