Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 11-16-2004, 11:17 PM   #1 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
How can anyone defend this?

How can ANYONE justify this? I don't care what your politics are I find it absolutely a crime that anyone working 40 hours a week has to live in poverty. It's bullshit and yet 20% of Ohio jobs pay that and that percentage is increasing.

I cannot see a reasonable excuse for this except greed. When you have people making less the government has no choice but to spend more on them in one way or another. Plus you take away a man's pride and in all honesty why work hard for 40 hours if you live in poverty? It's not just in Ohio people.

I heard this report this morning and have been looking all day to find a link so I could post this. There was more to it in the original report I heard but since I cannot find anything I won't comment until I can.
==========================================================

1 In 5 Ohio Jobs Pay Less Than Poverty
Low-Wage Earners Increasing

POSTED: 7:48 am EST November 16, 2004

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- A new study finds that one in five jobs in Ohio pays less than a poverty level wage -- about $18,000 for a family of four.

And the number of low-wage earners is increasing as Ohio continues to lose manufacturing jobs that are being replaced by low-paying jobs in the service sector.

The study was conducted by Community Research Partners, a Columbus-based nonprofit research organization with funding from the Annie E.Casey, Ford and Rockefeller Foundations.

==========================================================
http://www.newsnet5.com/money/3921656/detail.html
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 11-16-2004, 11:35 PM   #2 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Here we go..........

READ these facts: tell me how we are living or leaving a better country than our parents or grandparents left. It's bullshit and people need to figure out why the government is allowing this to happen.

You can't have a money for education if you don't have a tax base for it. You can't develop a tax base unless you have the jobs that pay high enough wages. You can't get good paying jobs if you don't have the educated workers..... hmmmmm a cycle isn't it. Saddest thing is notice Ohio has the 7th Largest state economy, only 19 states are doing better financially for families.... means 30 are worse off than this.

===============================================================

Changes recommended in adult education and training and state tax policy to
help low-income working families get ahead and advance Ohio's economy.

COLUMBUS, Ohio, Nov. 10 /PRNewswire/ -- Although Ohio has the seventh
largest state economy in the nation, one out of four working families with
children earns so little they have difficulty meeting basic needs, and one in
five jobs in the state -- about 1 million jobs -- pays less than a poverty-
level wage, finds a report released today.

Nineteen other states are doing better than Ohio in the percent of working
families with children who are low-income. Ohio trails other states in efforts
to help its nearly 350,000 low-income working families in such areas as adult
education and training, unemployment insurance and tax burden, the report
shows.

"Average Isn't Enough: Advancing Working Families," provides a
groundbreaking, comprehensive look at Ohio's low-income working families and
the efforts of state programs and policies to help them get ahead in the new
service and knowledge economy.

The report concludes that to achieve economic progress, the state must do more to enable all Ohio families that work hard to be self-sufficient. The
research, which assembles a wide range of data about the condition of these
families, the Ohio economy, and the state's efforts on behalf of low-income
working families, finds many opportunities for change:

-- Only one of Ohio's ten occupations with the
highest number of annual job openings pays an average hourly wage
above 200 percent of the poverty level for a full-time worker. Ohio's
two largest employers, based on state estimates, are Wal-Mart Stores
and the Kroger Company.

-- Twenty-one percent of Ohio's low-income working families -- 74,000
families -- have a parent who has not complete high school or a GED,
and an estimated 44-49 percent of Ohioans age 16 and over have poor
literacy skills. Yet Ohio has the 35th lowest state expenditure rate
for adult basic and literacy education programs, spending only $13.07 a
year per Ohio adult without a high school diploma or GED.

-- Sixty-eight percent of Ohio's low-income working families -- 200,000
families -- have an adult without any postsecondary education. Yet Ohio
lags behind 20 other states in need-based financial aid, providing only
31 percent of the amount of federal Pell Grants received by Ohio
students. In addition, Ohio does not provide financial aid to adults
seeking short-term, non-degree career classes.

-- One out of ten Ohio adults -- 575,000 workers -- is not fully employed,
a percentage worse than 34 other states. But Ohio's unemployment
insurance system does not provide an adequate safety net for the
lowest-income workers. A minimum wage worker working 35 hours weekly
does not meet Ohio's current $181 average weekly wage requirement to
quality for unemployment benefits.

-- Ninety-six thousand Ohio working families with children are living in
poverty, yet Ohio levies taxes on families with lower incomes than in
all but five states. An Ohio family of three who earns as little as
$13,000 a year must pay state income tax.


"Families who do the right thing by working hard should not have to
struggle with the basic necessities of life. Fortunately, Ohio has many assets
on which to build a solid agenda to improve the lives of the state's low-
income working families," said Roberta Garber, executive director of Community Research Partners in Columbus. "The success of these families in education and employment is key to moving Ohio's economy forward, which we know is a top priority for state leaders."

The Ohio Working Poor Families Project report was prepared by Community
Research Partners, a Columbus based non-profit research organization, in
collaboration with the Center for Community Solutions in Cleveland, the John
Glenn Institute at The Ohio State University and KnowledgeWorks Foundation.

The findings of the Ohio report dovetail with those in the October 2004
national report, "Working Hard, Falling Short", which highlighted the
conditions and challenges facing low-income working families in the U.S. Both
reports were produced as part of the Working Poor Families Project. Supported by the Annie E. Casey, Ford, and Rockefeller Foundations, the project spotlights issues confronting low-income working families and recommends policy changes to improve their economic standing. Information on the project and copies of other state reports are available
at http://www.aecf.org/initiatives/jobs...orkingpoor.htm .

Community Research Partners is a partnership of United Way of Central
Ohio, the City of Columbus and the John Glenn Institute for Public Service and
Public Policy at The Ohio State University.

An embargoed release of the report, "Average Isn't Enough: Advancing
Working Families," is available on the Community Research Partners
website: http://www.communityresearchpartners.org .

For more information on Ohio's low-income working families and the state's
efforts to help them develop economic security, contact Roberta Garber at
Community Research Partners, 410-234-8046 or Emily Hedrick, KnowledgeWorks Foundation, 513-929-1132.
====================================================

link: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/st...2456841&EDATE=
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 11-16-2004, 11:51 PM   #3 (permalink)
whosoever
 
martinguerre's Avatar
 
Location: New England
the libel that the poor are universally "lazy" is one of the most astounding lies of our day. good post...it's crucial to show that the working poor are that, working and poor. call me a communist if you like, but i think a full time work ought to mean being able to afford a safe home, food on the table, and seeing a doctor when you need to.
__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16
martinguerre is offline  
Old 11-16-2004, 11:57 PM   #4 (permalink)
Tilted
 
Uhmm.... Are you sure it has anything to do with the governments intentions.

At the end of the day, non-union wages are based on nothing other than supply and demand. Period, end of story.

The answer is not to have the govt "do something about it" I assume you are referring to the federal govt since you were comparing to other states in the union. I suspect that the answer lies in what the state and local elected officials are doing to attract new business as the economc climate has changed. The elected officials, the ones you elected, have the responsibility to adapt as things change. We are a services based economy and as the manufacturing jobs have gone by way of the union, they local emphasis needs to change, unless of course they were in the back pockets of those unions....

just my two cents....
socal is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 12:33 AM   #5 (permalink)
Insane
 
I just watched an excellent Frontline report on how Wal-Mart was forcing its suppliers to move their production to China. The full program should be available online starting Friday for those interested. I highly recommend it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/

There is just no way U.S. manufacturing can compete with manufacturing in China so companies are being forced to move there or go out of business. As a result, decent paying $15/hour jobs with good benefits are being replaced with Wal-Mart wage service jobs with little or no benefits causing living standards to decline and steadily eroding the middle class. The U.S. trade deficit with China is now approaching $150 billion and it's only increasing.
hammer4all is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 01:05 AM   #6 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
Quote:
Originally Posted by socal
Uhmm.... Are you sure it has anything to do with the governments intentions.

At the end of the day, non-union wages are based on nothing other than supply and demand. Period, end of story.

The answer is not to have the govt "do something about it" I assume you are referring to the federal govt since you were comparing to other states in the union. I suspect that the answer lies in what the state and local elected officials are doing to attract new business as the economc climate has changed. The elected officials, the ones you elected, have the responsibility to adapt as things change. We are a services based economy and as the manufacturing jobs have gone by way of the union, they local emphasis needs to change, unless of course they were in the back pockets of those unions....

just my two cents....

Do you have any suggstions for what could be done?

The state has two service oriented businesses: Kroger and Wal-Mart.

Fred Meyer's (owned by Kroger) is unionized in certain sections (like the cashiers).

Otherwise they would get minimum wage indefinately. Even the unioniized workers get fucked oftentimes. My wife's store would constantly violate policies and her contract (as in, work her less than 20 hours per week so she wouldn't get benefits).

For anyone who thinks she should have gone somewhere else, that's the outlook in so many sectors it isn't even fathomable if you haven't been on the job market within the past decade or so. And it wasn't a personal thing, the store would hire multiple workers and rotate them around so everyone got equal hours. In fact, I got the impression that the manager was actually trying to do something positive by spreading the hours out--so more people could work, even though it was without benefits or a steady or enough paycheck. It was the corporation that capped the total amount of hours she could use per store sales and floorspace in a given week.

Before we left, she made ~$8 an hour. 8*16 (average weekly hours) = $128 * 4 = $512 per month. If we weren't married, she would have been in hardship. She wanted to work more and her schedule was available to work, but the company did not give out more hours; people in her situation are referred to as "involuntary part-time workers" in the literature and employment figures and we have more than 3 million of them in our workforce.

I just lectured this the other day, so I'm trying to recall the exact figure, but there are about 3.5 million full time workers in our workforce that make under the poverty level.

None of these numbers include illegal workers--they either don't have phones, don't want to talk to a government surveyer, and/or live multiple families to a single home. So the estimate is that we can likely double both of those and still not quite tap the extent of the working poor in our economy.


The simplest thing is to raise the minimum wage to a standard appropriate to the buying power it had when it was instituted decades ago. Studies the professor cited to the class indicated that the notion that jobs suffer from increases in minimum wages is a myth, but I haven't read them myself.

Also, the way we measure poverty is outmoded. It is figured by this weird notion of the average price of a food basket (an abstract basket that contains the proper nutrients for a family of 4) and multiplying it by 3. That is because it was assumed that the average family spends 1/3 of its income on food.

The woman who created that food basket forumla has since written a book about how it was misused. She states that her version was for basic life requirements to keep someone alive. Not like someone should live on it. You can figure it backwords and decide for yourself:

Just think for a second whether $18,000 per year for a family of 4 is enough to live on.
But using the $18K (which at least 7 million working people live under per year), we find that the government expects people to feed two children and two adults with $6,000 per year. And pay rent with the other $12,000 (we don't get to figure vehicle, clothes, medical care, or entertainment).

Researchers have come up with an alternate measure that does take into consideration those other items people need -- a self-sufficiency standard. I don't remember if it varies by region, but the number cited was, I think, $38,000.

In orange county, even shady parts of town that I guarantee most posters on this board would not live in, average rent is ~$1,600. That would be about a 2 bedroom apartment, so I don't know how long a family of 4 could live there.


So we need to do a couple of things:

1. Raise the minimum wage commensurate with inflation

2. Raise the poverty threshhold

3. Develop a plan to get these workers some preventive health care.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
smooth is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 01:35 AM   #7 (permalink)
Banned
 
Location: BFE
Who knows...maybe they should have studied in school instead of spending their time smoking pot and reading "Teen Beat".

If you're stupid, no matter how much you make, you can indeed live below the poverty line. And the poverty line, BTW, is generally a statistical critter.

If you're born poor and WANT to get out of poverty, you can do it. It may not be fun, it may entail a lot of hard work, but it certainly can be done. Even in Ohio.
daswig is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 01:40 AM   #8 (permalink)
Junkie
 
[QUOTE=smooth
So we need to do a couple of things:

1. Raise the minimum wage commensurate with inflation

2. Raise the poverty threshhold

3. Develop a plan to get these workers some preventive health care.[/QUOTE]

Actually, that's 3 things

But seriously, the impact of a wage raise like that is quite substantial. For every economist that says wage increase would not impact jobs, there is one who says it will. Also, if it doesn't impact jobs, it will impact prices. What does it matter if everyone makes $10 per hour if now a loaf of bread is $6? The problem isn't the monentary value, it's real wage. And real wage won't rise unless you desire some mandated cap on profits of a company, because the increase in cost of providing labor for that company will be offset by dropping the labor force and/or increasing prices.

And for raising the poverty threshhold, I don't see that as being a big deal. All that is doing is changing the framework of a problem, but it won't go anywhere to solving a problem. For one, there are already many current metrics that would point out the poor lifestyle of many working poor (some of which you pointed out). Statistics are rarely enough to get the average person to care about an issue. Case in point: in 2003, many economists were actually saying that a RISE in the unemployment rate would point to an improving economy, versus a lowering. This is due to the way the unemployment rate is figured, and that the higher rate would show an increase in people looking for jobs again after losing confidence in the economy.

Rather than just raising minimum wage, I would prefer to see a shift in the way schools are run toward a model closer to Germany's. In Germany, many businesses invest in high schools, and also provide pseudo-apprenticeships for students. Not only does this give businesses a vested intrest in its future employees (staving off outsourcing), but it provides the businesses with highly trained employees with company loyalty. It won't help many of the people now, but something like this, IMO, would go a long way toward helping the development of a future middle class. Plus, the economic impact wouldn't be as unpredictable as just a blanket minimum wage increase.

As an aside, California is just an extremely expensive place to live if a bad apartment is $1,600. I live in Michigan, and a very nice 2 bedroom apartment can easily be had most places for around $700 (and that's for a fairly high-end place).
alansmithee is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 02:48 AM   #9 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by daswig
Who knows...maybe they should have studied in school instead of spending their time smoking pot and reading "Teen Beat".

If you're stupid, no matter how much you make, you can indeed live below the poverty line. And the poverty line, BTW, is generally a statistical critter.

If you're born poor and WANT to get out of poverty, you can do it. It may not be fun, it may entail a lot of hard work, but it certainly can be done. Even in Ohio.
The wealthiest one percent of the people in the United States, during the
thirty three year period between 1970 and 2003, increased the percentage of
the total wealth of this country that they own, from 13 percent to 33 percent.
This transfer of one fifth of the wealth FROM the rest of us, TO the wealthiest,
took place during a period of much higher state and federal inheritance taxes
than the wealthiest will face from now on.....and during a period when they
paid a much higher, progressive tax rate than they have paid recently.....
and will pay going forward. The wealthiest gained, versus the rest of us,
during a period of much higher worker union affiliation than the current level.

Your post is idealistic, impractical, uninformed, and describes a very unlikely
outcome for the vast majority of Americans, going forward, given current
tax policy and the velocity of the concentration of wealth. The wealthiest
few have never held more economic and political power than they do now,
and seldom in our country's history have they been less pressured to act
for the common good. Indeed, you, and many others discount their leverage
and advantage in maintaining current wealth redistribution trends. You help
to hasten the day when, in lieu of any hope of reversing current trends
via peaceful, political and union organizing and civil protest, violent revolution
against the ruling class will be viewed as an accepted, and inevitable remedy.
host is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 06:28 AM   #10 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
I'm sorry guys but there is no excuse and yes the government should do something. If people are willing to work 40 hours they should be able to afford a life. What does it show the kids, work hard barely afford to live? Be smart but not afford college? Try to work 40 hours and support your families but feel like a failure because the jobs won't pay enough?

20% people AND INCREASING people. Who's paying their credit cards and car loans and house loans off?

Why are we the only industrialized nation allowing our businesses to do this? What happened to this "the US sets the standards the rest of the world tries to get to"?

Government can help by raising education spending and making sure we educate our young for better jobs. Government can increase tariffs and tax penalties on companies that outsource jobs.

There are a few on this board that argue for greed and that as long as they have theirs everyuone else can go screw themselves, but, eventually it affects them unless they are in the very elite, because if people can't pay their bills the companies are going to hit the people that can pay harder. Someone has to pay and if the poor can't well the rest will.

IF you refuse to show a man who wants to work 40 hours respect then you only encourage animosity and total rage that eventually will find a release somehow.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 06:55 AM   #11 (permalink)
Huggles, sir?
 
seretogis's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle
Minimum wage is just that -- a minimum. It is not intended to be able to raise a family of four on 40 hours a week at minimum wage. The minimum wage is NOT a "living wage" and shouldn't be.
__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames
seretogis is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 07:31 AM   #12 (permalink)
is awesome!
 
Locobot's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by smooth
So we need to do a couple of things:

1. Raise the minimum wage commensurate with inflation

2. Raise the poverty threshhold

3. Develop a plan to get these workers some preventive health care.
It's weird, there was one presidential candidate talking like this and one who wasn't and Ohio voted for the one who wasn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alansmithee
But seriously, the impact of a wage raise like that is quite substantial. For every economist that says wage increase would not impact jobs, there is one who says it will. Also, if it doesn't impact jobs, it will impact prices. What does it matter if everyone makes $10 per hour if now a loaf of bread is $6? The problem isn't the monentary value, it's real wage. And real wage won't rise unless you desire some mandated cap on profits of a company, because the increase in cost of providing labor for that company will be offset by dropping the labor force and/or increasing prices.
Monetary value is how you calculate real wage. Inflation has increased but wages have not, that is in effect a pay cut to the real wage. People earning minimum wage are actually earning less now than before Clinton raised the federal minimum.
Quote:
Rather than just raising minimum wage, I would prefer to see a shift in the way schools are run toward a model closer to Germany's. In Germany, many businesses invest in high schools, and also provide pseudo-apprenticeships for students. Not only does this give businesses a vested intrest in its future employees (staving off outsourcing), but it provides the businesses with highly trained employees with company loyalty. It won't help many of the people now, but something like this, IMO, would go a long way toward helping the development of a future middle class. Plus, the economic impact wouldn't be as unpredictable as just a blanket minimum wage increase.
I agree that we push far too many people into college that don't belong there and who won't benefit. Germany's system directs students into apprenticeships for jobs that are blue-collar but unionized, well-paying, and middle class as well. If we let businesses into our high schools I'm afraid it would just be taken over by wal-mart so they could underpay high school workers and indoctrinate students.
Quote:
As an aside, California is just an extremely expensive place to live if a bad apartment is $1,600. I live in Michigan, and a very nice 2 bedroom apartment can easily be had most places for around $700 (and that's for a fairly high-end place).
One of the purposes of a minimum wage is to even out this kind of discrepency across the nation. No, a person earning middle wage in Ohio could never afford to live in California. Much of California though has living-wage statutes that balance wages with inflation and the cost of living.
Locobot is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 07:41 AM   #13 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by seretogis
Minimum wage is just that -- a minimum. It is not intended to be able to raise a family of four on 40 hours a week at minimum wage. The minimum wage is NOT a "living wage" and shouldn't be.
True but companies are taking advantage of it and are paying as close to it as possible and ARE NOT paying liveable wages. That's the whole point.

What we need to look at and what people on here who believe it is the workers fault and not the companies totally miss, why are we sending our jobs and money at record paces to countries that hate us while we allow and seemingly don't give a damn that, our citizens are finding jobs that keep them near or in poverty?

Why do these great GOPer's who hate China and believe China to be evil, who talk of China having one goal and that is to destroy us, and yet we send millions of dollars over there, and jobs and refuse to tariff their goods as they tariff ours? Why is that?

No, I don't believe someone who works 40 hours at McDonald's should own a Mercedes and live in luxury, but I don't believe they should be paid to barely afford rent, food and common luxuries that people need to maintain good mental health.

It is my contention that if give people respect and pay them an honest liveable wage that they will work harder and that they will advance on their own. However we are not seeing that. What we are seeing are companies paying as low a wage as possible, not giving more than 35 hours (because in Ohio 35 hours/ week for 3 months means f/t and the company has to offer benefits).

These articles (and I believe they are customary for ALL states) just talk about the 20% of workers in poverty, what about those that are just barely above that level, what are those numbers that make above poverty but not statistically liveable wages? (Liveable wages (to me) = being able to afford rent/ house payments, insurance, a car and its upkeep, utilities, food and entertainment and be able to have some form of savings.)

Who pays the medical bills when they can't? Who pays for the loans and the bills they stiff because they can't pay? Who's going to pay for them when they are to old to work?

You cut the tax base this badly and the "rich" will have to swallow all these expenses. It's not because the workers didn't try, it wasn't because the workers didn't work hard enough (and I challenge anyone in here who believes McDonald's or Wal*Mart to be easy work to work there for those wages for a week and truly say they were paid what they deserved).

By outsourcing jobs and allowing companies to take manufacturing overseas you cut 2 massive tax bases that don't ever come back. You cut the factory taxes and you cut decently paid employees taxes. What you get in return are sales taxes and very very low income taxes if any, in their place. Who makes up for those lost taxes, the government keeps cutting and we keep downwardly spiralling.

There are those that claim "we are moving beyond manufacturing jobs", 3 problems with that:

1) who is making the goods then and what are we exporting (as of right now the trade deficit is far far greater than the income).

2) how do we educate for these new jobs when the tax base has been eroded and we can't afford to finance public schools?

3) we are not increasing any true wage job growth, in fact we are increasing wage job loss (meaning as better paying jobs leave we get less paying jobs with fewer benefits in their place)

There is a reason lawsuits have increased, you work hard you are not advancing someone does something you see a rainbow out and sue. No, it's not right, no I truly believe people do not want to by nature do that, BUT it offers a way out for them.

There's a reason workplace violence, addiction, crime and poverty keep increasing and it is because when you do not pay liveable wages (in a society like ours where money pretty much dictates who you are to many people) you see a cycle occur. A cycle where people will first try to get out, then people accept their reality and lose their aspirations and dreams, then people become envious, then people become violent, then their children see this and repeat this formula, only the children have no aspirations and dreams.

You either accept the fact that ALL people deserve respect and honest liveable wages or you accept the fact that YOU will pay for those who you refused to respect. And if you think you won't have to pay..... elections are still held, and if they keep failing and poverty keeps increasing then other ways will come to surface.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 07:44 AM   #14 (permalink)
Insane
 
Location: Missouri
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
How can ANYONE justify this? I don't care what your politics are I find it absolutely a crime that anyone working 40 hours a week has to live in poverty. It's bullshit and yet 20% of Ohio jobs pay that and that percentage is increasing.

I cannot see a reasonable excuse for this except greed.

I don't know whose job it is to justify it. You may want to try to put it into context.

How many people in Ohio are the single earner in a household of four and more and work 40 hours per week at one of these jobs? Without this information, the statistic doesn't mean that much.

What was the percentage in 1998 or 1994?

What if the previously high paying jobs are not needed anymore because of the evolution of the economy? Does the free market stop in Columbus? Are there diff. rules for Ohio?

If single people or students have a lot of these jobs and they do not live in poverty, are we still offended? What if one spouse makes 40k and the other makes 16k and they have two kids? The live in a household that makes over three times the poverty level and 50%, 50% PERCENT of that household has a job that would put a family of four under the poverty level. That's 30 more than 20. Whose greed is killing this family?

While were at it, aren't there some definitional issues with the "poverty level?" Does that level include families that can afford a computer, cable, the internet, cell phones, etc. in addition to food, shelter, clothing?

What good would raising the minimum wage do if we are upset that the man making 17k isn't making 20k?
aliali is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 07:45 AM   #15 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Ilow's Avatar
 
Location: Pats country
Quote:
Originally Posted by daswig
Who knows...maybe they should have studied in school instead of spending their time smoking pot and reading "Teen Beat".

If you're stupid, no matter how much you make, you can indeed live below the poverty line. And the poverty line, BTW, is generally a statistical critter.

If you're born poor and WANT to get out of poverty, you can do it. It may not be fun, it may entail a lot of hard work, but it certainly can be done. Even in Ohio.
Daswig unwittingly brings up another major myth about those living around or below the poverty line--that they're stupid, so that is their place in life.
Often the working poor work more than one job, and even if there was a job that paid slightly more than they make available, they wouldn't want to risk missing work to go apply for it.
My initial reaction to this post was--don't look at me, the people have spoken in the last election, they don't want a "society" where everyone can at least have "luxurys" like food and basic health care. I truely amazes me that some of the "red" states were convinced to vote clearly against their economic interests. I feel that it is the second biggest ruse that the Republicans purpetrated (after convincing much of the public that they are moderate). Most of the "red" states are not economic powerhouses, they probably have the highest percentage of people living below the "poverty line" and yet they vote for someone who has never truely spoken to their needs (a tiny bit of campaign lip service for a sound bite doesn't really count).
I wish I had some solutions. I continue to see our country turning into a "service nation" where the majority of people work at jobs where they make little (because you don't really need a special talent to work at Wal Mart, or the grocery store) and sell products that were made cheaply overseas. The problem is, anytime someone makes a suggestion to solve the problem someone in the Neo-Con party labels it as "Communist" and it dies a quick death. i would like to see the government place tariffs or taxes on companies who use cheap overseas labor to make products that are sold over here. Take Nike, for instance, I've read estimates that it costs anywhere from a few cents to a couple of dollars to make shoes in indonesia that retail over here for a hundred dollars and are sold by someone making 8 dollars an hour. They would say that they couldn't afford to make a profit if they produced the shoes here, but New Balance seems to be doing OK. It's a crime that the fat cats like Knight and the Waltons are making millions riding on the working poor.
__________________
"Religion is the one area of our discourse in which it is considered noble to pretend to be certain about things no human being could possibly be certain about"
--Sam Harris
Ilow is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 08:09 AM   #16 (permalink)
Insane
 
Location: Missouri
Ohio is better than the national average in the following categories:

Working families who are low-income (below 200% of poverty)
Children in working families who are low income
working families in poverty
children in working families who are in poverty

The reason there is an increase in lower paying jobs is because those sectors of the economy are growing faster than other sectors of the economy, not because there are no higher paying jobs.

You can make over $36,700 in a household of two, have health benefits and still be included as a low income family in this study.
aliali is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 08:10 AM   #17 (permalink)
Cracking the Whip
 
Lebell's Avatar
 
Location: Sexymama's arms...
Question:

Where will the money come from for these wonderful solutions?
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!
Lebell is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 08:16 AM   #18 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
what could be better for capital in general that convincing so many petit bourgeois that the problems of economic instability and exploitation (they are linked) can be traced not to problems of economic organization but rather to problems of inner being?

the poor are poor because they are morally reprobate or because they are stupid or because...well they ought to be poor.
it is a question of essence.
same kind of arguments are embedded in the racism mobilized cheerfully by the right to rationalize the "war on terrorism".
same kind of arguments are embedded in elements organized by the assimilation of fundamentalist protestant discourse into right politics.
same kind of arguments are embedded in conservative conceptions of nationalism.

what could be better for capital than convincing people that the effects of capitalism can be explained in ways that divert attention away from capitalism?

well you could make these same folk suspicious of mobilization, of unionizing.
you could have them endorse their own economic powerlessness
if you want to cement the deal, you float the Ideal of the Entrepreneur
which is the simple-minded mapping of the ideology of the autonomous individual
not conditioned by social factors
into the space of neoclassical economics.

for good measure, add the horatio alger mythology

and repeat it and repeat it and repeat it and repeat it and repeat it and

why bother with direct domination
when you can convince people to render and maintain themselves as powerless?

this discourse is the veil around which decline unfolds.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 08:16 AM   #19 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by daswig
Who knows...maybe they should have studied in school instead of spending their time smoking pot and reading "Teen Beat".
So the working poor - of who pan is speaking - spent their time in high school smoking pot and reading Teen Beat?

I chuckled whilst reading this. The notion that those working poor have within their homes a stash of old bongs and pipes and stacks of back issues of Teen Beat seems a little archaic - does anyone actually read Teen Beat anymore? Do we really believe that the working poor were lazy, pot-smoking do-nothings who are now receving their karmic reward while those who are not poor were the hard-working, nose-to-the-grindstone studious types who are also now reaping the rewards of their toils?

I suppose when we carry those attitudes within us, it's easy to pretend that people are really that simple and the complexities of life are just part of the socialist manifesto designed to separate good, true Americans from their hard-earned money.

Black and white makes for good photographs and moody films, but it's lousy for real life analogies.

Quote:
If you're stupid, no matter how much you make, you can indeed live below the poverty line. And the poverty line, BTW, is generally a statistical critter.
Hmm, calling the poverty line a statistical critter....I've never heard a statistic called a critter before. I may be wrong, but I take this statement as a trivialization of the idea of a poverty line. Taking away from its factual basis as a number that describes the ability of people who work 40 hours a week - the basis of pan's thread - to earn a decent living is disingenuous. Your statement that the stupid can still be poor even though they make a lot of money does not address the issue of this thread. A stupid person may be intellectually poor, but if they're making $75,000 a year, they are not living below the poverty line.

Quote:
If you're born poor and WANT to get out of poverty, you can do it. It may not be fun, it may entail a lot of hard work, but it certainly can be done. Even in Ohio.
The working poor are not looking for a fun and easy way out. They're already working a full-time job. Some of them are even working 2 jobs. We're talking about people who cannot afford college but are willing to work as hard as they must to make ends meet. Don't they deserve a wage that allows them the means and the time to raise their families?

I'm not making this argument to ask for pity, but illustrate a point. My wife and I have a combined yearly income of nearly $100,000. This would ideally seem like a lot of money to live on, yet we are unable to afford a house. The reason is simple: based on our careers, we signed a contract requiring us to live within the city limits of Chicago. Housing in Chicago is not exactly cheap. While we do not live in poverty, we are unable to afford a mortgage. We did this willingly and are very happy with where we are, but that is us. If we are unable to afford a home at our income, what makes you think that a family of four with a household income of $50,000 can even begin to make it in places like Chicago, New York, or San Francisco? As much as we may like to be dismissive of places like this as not reflecting a true picture of affordability in our nation, it doesn't detract from the fact that well over 20 million people inhabit these cities and many of them must deal with the reality of not having a livable wage.

The reality is that there are many people in our nation unable to afford a lifestyle that is comfortable or even livable. That someone who works an honest day is not able to afford the basic necessities in life is dispicable.
__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses
JumpinJesus is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 08:33 AM   #20 (permalink)
can't help but laugh
 
irateplatypus's Avatar
 
Location: dar al-harb
Here is a great link describing the poverty levels since 1959.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/histpov/hstpov1.html

you can see the figures for families of all numbers in the table... but here is an interesting fact. for a couple living 1983, the poverty line was at $7,938. this same measure has been bumped up to $14,680 in the year 2003.

that's nearly TWICE what it was just 20 years ago. surely this must outpace inflation (does it?) and the CPI. medicare, welfare and unemployment benefits have risen since then... is it not possible that the standard for poverty has improved since 1983?
__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill
irateplatypus is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 08:42 AM   #21 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by irateplatypus
Here is a great link describing the poverty levels since 1959.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/histpov/hstpov1.html

you can see the figures for families of all numbers in the table... but here is an interesting fact. for a couple living 1983, the poverty line was at $7,938. this same measure has been bumped up to $14,680 in the year 2003.

that's nearly TWICE what it was just 20 years ago. surely this must outpace inflation (does it?) and the CPI. medicare, welfare and unemployment benefits have risen since then... is it not possible that the standard for poverty has improved since 1983?
thanks for the link, irate. I looked at it very quickly and it seems that the CPI is about twice what it was in 1982, as well. I'm on my way out the door, but I'll take a closer look at it when I get home. Unless someone beats me to it - which will most likely be the case.
__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses
JumpinJesus is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 08:44 AM   #22 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
The dems are working at convincing Ohio that they suck and need government (read democrat) help already?

Wow, thats pretty fast work.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 08:49 AM   #23 (permalink)
will always be an Alyson Hanniganite
 
Bill O'Rights's Avatar
 
Location: In the dust of the archives
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
Why do these great GOPer's who hate China and believe China to be evil, who talk of China having one goal and that is to destroy us, and yet we send millions of dollars over there, and jobs and refuse to tariff their goods as they tariff ours? Why is that?
For the same reason that while we bemoan and cry about Walmart, we still shop there. $$$$$$
It's to our immediate financial advantage. Long term...maybe not so much, but for right now...this is where the dollar is.
__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

Last edited by Bill O'Rights; 11-17-2004 at 08:51 AM..
Bill O'Rights is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 08:55 AM   #24 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Ilow's Avatar
 
Location: Pats country
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy

why bother with direct domination
when you can convince people to render and maintain themselves as powerless?

this discourse is the veil around which decline unfolds.
my point exactly! (but said a little more eloquently, I think)
__________________
"Religion is the one area of our discourse in which it is considered noble to pretend to be certain about things no human being could possibly be certain about"
--Sam Harris
Ilow is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 09:51 AM   #25 (permalink)
Junkie
 
I still have yet to see a reasonable, workable solution to helpint the "working poor". Sure, it would be nice if all these hardworking people could get more money, but who is going to foot the bill? Raising the minimum wage has more impact than just the base wage increase. A business usually pays approximately double an employees salary in SSI, taxes, and other gov't programs (depending on state workman's comp laws). So somebody making $6 an hour whose wage is bumped to $11 an hour has an increase of $11 to $20 per hour of labor for the company. So these costs are now going to come out the back end as either higher prices on goods (making the wage increase less effective) or as manufacturing jobs shipped out to countries where they don't have to pay as much.
alansmithee is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 04:59 PM   #26 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Notice how many ask where the money comes from or offers arguments as to why this is okay.

We have to look beyond initial cost and figure out what is more beneficial in the long term. Long term right now is bleak to say the least. The only way to change things is to either tariff imports and make it again worthwhile to pay employees middle income wages and re-open factories. (Worked pretty damn well from the end of WW2 till the late 80's.) Or raise taxes on the rich and reinforce education not just for the children but for the displaced workers. Train and educate people to get the jobs that are high paying. Yes, taxes go up, yes, education is the primary focus BUT, the alternatives as discussed before in previous posts I've written, end with the rich paying more taxes anyway or a revolution in society by the worker once they have had enough.

Personally, this time is more profitable for me. My family is making a bundle. Dad is running a surveying company and breaking up farms and gaining land from those who need to sell it (taking his pick of parcels as payment. Mother is gaining money in auctions buying antiques dirt cheap then selling them for 50-100+% markups in my mother's shop or on E-Bay. I, personally, will profit because the more people feel hopeless the more addiction there is, the more need for addictions counselors there are.

My family profits on the losses of others. I should be all for it then, right? Wrong because I look long term and while my sister and I and maybe our kids will be set there are many out there that won't be and the country will be at odds and a very negative place to live. The USA should never be negative. I grew up believing that anything was possible here and that this country strived to be better than anyone else.... we don't and we aren't. The truth is we have people striving to MAKE as much as they can by utilizing those who struggle just to keep a roof over their head and try to live decent lives.

So the reality is my family and I will lose money if times get better, but my children and grandchildren may have a better country than what I have now, and that is what I want.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 04:59 PM   #27 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
Quote:
Originally Posted by irateplatypus
Here is a great link describing the poverty levels since 1959.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/histpov/hstpov1.html

you can see the figures for families of all numbers in the table... but here is an interesting fact. for a couple living 1983, the poverty line was at $7,938. this same measure has been bumped up to $14,680 in the year 2003.

that's nearly TWICE what it was just 20 years ago. surely this must outpace inflation (does it?) and the CPI. medicare, welfare and unemployment benefits have risen since then... is it not possible that the standard for poverty has improved since 1983?
The amounts are roughly the same ($14667.24 in the year 2003 has the same "purchase power" as $7938 in the year 1983.)

I pulled that figure from here: http://www.eh.net/hmit/ppowerusd/

Benefits have not increased, they have decreased and the amount of time one can receive them is now capped at 5 years. The standard for poverty has worsened over time.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
smooth is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 05:01 PM   #28 (permalink)
Loser
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lebell
Question:

Where will the money come from for these wonderful solutions?
Well, considering the wealth gap has been widening, we could raise taxes on the rich and close corporate tax loopholes. Instead of, you know, doing the reverse.
Manx is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 05:04 PM   #29 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
Regardless of what economists say about the impact of raising the minimum wage in terms of lost jobs or increased prices, there is a historical record that researchers can and do look at.

My statement was not an opinion, it was based on analysis of the historical record. Economists can argue that increasing the minimum wage will reduce jobs and increase prices out of control of those who just recieved the wage increase, but they would then be wrong according to the empirical evidence.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
smooth is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 05:23 PM   #30 (permalink)
can't help but laugh
 
irateplatypus's Avatar
 
Location: dar al-harb
this seems to indicate that the number of people living in poverty is right about average since records started being kept... actually much better than it was in the 60s.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/h.../hstpov13.html

i think the biggest change is what people consider an "living wage" to be. what do you all mean when you say "living wage"? personally, i don't think a living wage necessarily includes home ownership or the ability to pay for a college education.

irateplatypus' working definition for a living wage: enough money to...
1) cloth yourself and all dependents modestly.
2) have 3 meals a day cooked at home.
3) pay heating and electricity bills.
4) have a living space big enough so that no more than 2 people live in a single room.
5) drive a safe vehicle
6) meet all those needs and still be able to save 10% of income or use as discretionary spending.

i think it's the government's responsibility (and sometimes that means getting the hell out of the way) to make "living wage" fit under something like those criteria.
__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill
irateplatypus is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 05:25 PM   #31 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
Quote:
Originally Posted by irateplatypus
this seems to indicate that the number of people living in poverty is right about average since records started being kept... actually much better than it was in the 60s.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/h.../hstpov13.html

i think the biggest change is what people consider an "living wage" to be. what do you all mean when you say "living wage"? personally, i don't think a living wage necessarily includes home ownership or the ability to pay for a college education.

irateplatypus' working definition for a living wage: enough money to...
1) cloth yourself and all dependents modestly.
2) enough to have 3 meals a day cooked at home.
3) pay heating and electricity bills.
4) have a living space big enough so that no more than 2 people live in a single room.
5) drive a safe vehicle
6) meet all those needs and still be able to save 10% of income or use as discretionary spending.

i think it's the government's responsibility (and sometimes that means getting the hell out of the way) to make "living wage" fit under something like those criteria.
that mirrors the definition I provided towards the top of this thread. Researchers call it a "self-sufficiency standard," and they found it to be $38,000 using the criteria you laid out.

Irate, it's important to note that the poverty threshold is currently set at $18,362 (2002) for a family of 4. But just as important, the bulk of families in poverty to not come close to that line. They do not, for example, make $16,000, but rather <$9,000. Without pulling my lecture notes out, the number is around half that live on that amount.

That is gross wage and includes transfers (subsidies, and etc., they don't get added to the 9K).


Increasing the threshold won't pull those people out of proverty (this is in response to a reply to me above from someone else), but it will make more poor workers elligable for services like health care, child care, low-income housing, and food stamps.

EDIT: pulled my notes out. BTW, professor is Elliot Currie (I think I already provided a link to an interview, but a google will give you a profile of him) and the course is Community Context of Crime. It's an undergraduate course and I'm the assistant (as well as his advisee).
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Last edited by smooth; 11-17-2004 at 05:34 PM..
smooth is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 05:38 PM   #32 (permalink)
can't help but laugh
 
irateplatypus's Avatar
 
Location: dar al-harb
man... it's so nice talking about something other than iraq or bush-bashing.

if we're talking about people needing to make a living wage while working 40 hours a week (as that seems to be the starting point on this thread), then consider this:

we'll start with a very conservative estimate... say just $8 an hour for unskilled labor. the cashier's at walmart start off close to that. for a couple...

$8 an hour, multiplied by 40 hours a week. 52 weeks in a year times 40 hours a week... double that figure to find total income for a married couple.

the figure comes to $33,280 for two unskilled fulltime incomes. i'm not saying i would want live on that, especially with a wife and maybe a child. however, that isn't bad is it? before anyone thinks i'm on a high-horse... i used to be poor. dirt poor. i'm a bit embarrassed to say my family even enrolled in welfare for a couple months when i was very young. still, for the basics of life... that isn't an unjustifiably low figure, is it? i know that here in Oklahoma $33,000 will take you a lot farther than most places... do unskilled labor jobs pay more in areas with a higher cost of living? i should know that.
__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill
irateplatypus is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 05:47 PM   #33 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
Now that I've got my notebook out, I can provide some more info:
(all of this can be checked against the census data; if someone has an issue with it, go look it up):

The average amount of people in poverity is 12%, but that is only a snapshot.
If we examine how many people stay poor all year long, ~6% of our population remains constantly poor.
If we examine how many people move in and out of poverty in a given year (as in, a family falls below the threshold for 3 months), the number rises to 20%.

7 million families are poor. 3.5 million of them are married (stable, in-tact, dual parent homes). .5 million are headed by a single male.

Which leaves only 3 million women with children living in poverty (only because evidently we start to see that "welfare queens" aren't that large of the impoverished population relative to everyone else).

This does not count homeless (it can't, work figures are derived from household surveys, not umemployment rosters), illegal workers (both immigrants and black-market, under the table, etc.), or people in the correction system (prison, jail, or other supervisory authority = 2 million people and rising). These figures are also only part of the "civilian workforce" so it doesn't count government workers nor does it count servicepeople.

Hopefully that last line got your attention: there seems to be a large number of servicepeople on this board. Many of their families are going through very hard times right now. Guardspeople know best whether the pay is enough to raise a family. My understanding from the older guardsmen I know is that they supplement their income with it. In any case, their wives are home trying to raise children on their pay right now.

The point is: Tens of millions of Americans (and another ~10 million non-americans) are impoverished in this country. Some are lazy, dumb, and cheats, but obviously we can't write off 30-40 million people to that status.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
smooth is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 05:57 PM   #34 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
Quote:
Originally Posted by irateplatypus
man... it's so nice talking about something other than iraq or bush-bashing.

if we're talking about people needing to make a living wage while working 40 hours a week (as that seems to be the starting point on this thread), then consider this:

we'll start with a very conservative estimate... say just $8 an hour for unskilled labor. the cashier's at walmart start off close to that. for a couple...

$8 an hour, multiplied by 40 hours a week. 52 weeks in a year times 40 hours a week... double that figure to find total income for a married couple.

the figure comes to $33,280 for two unskilled fulltime incomes. i'm not saying i would want live on that, especially with a wife and maybe a child. however, that isn't bad is it? before anyone thinks i'm on a high-horse... i used to be poor. dirt poor. i'm a bit embarrassed to say my family even enrolled in welfare for a couple months when i was very young. still, for the basics of life... that isn't an unjustifiably low figure, is it? i know that here in Oklahoma $33,000 will take you a lot farther than most places... do unskilled labor jobs pay more in areas with a higher cost of living? i should know that.
No, you are right in that it isn't bad. And I'd be willing to be somewhat mollified if workers were getting that.

Unskilled jobs do not pay more anywhere, whatever Wal-Mart pays over there it will pay over here.

The problem becomes if the couple has children. We could argue that they shouldn't have children, but if they do, they need child care in order for them to work. I would rather someone stay home, personally. I think we know by now (in terms of crime and violence) what happens when children raise themselves. But they can live on it, I'll grant that, I just don't see it as socially desirable in the long run, personally. I used to be dirt poor, too, BTW (and still am by government figures, but everyone here knows that should change when I get my degree, so it's a different situation nowdays).

I think you realize that they won't be able to save anything for their retirement with that amount of money. This is one of my greatest concerns with the social security issue.

How much taxes do they pay on that? If they are, say, in a 15% bracket, they really only get ~$28,000 right? Then we add in state taxes, sales taxes, and misc. taxes, and we start to see the money isn't quite working out anymore. But I'll grant that it may still be livable in some states. We need people to be able to live in California who works these jobs, too. I would like to have someone besides a Ph. D. graduate hand me my bucket of chicken. I don't know of anywhere one could live on a dual income of <$28K in Southern California. It's true the price of living is out of control. But dense cities have a high concentration of both low-paying jobs and low income people. So something is going to give--usually it's the prison walls.


The real problem, irate, is that not many families are getting 2 full time jobs. Not because they don't want to work, they aren't to be had. Many people are working multiple jobs, although I don't have the current figures. They have to do this because Wal-Mart is not one of the companies that allows full time work. Their upper management employees have full-time work and benefits, but their rank and file doesn't--they fall into that category I mentioned up above: "involuntary part-time workers" comprising ~3 million people of our workforce.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Last edited by smooth; 11-17-2004 at 06:02 PM..
smooth is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 06:49 PM   #35 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Raising the minimum wage is a band-aid and doesn't solve the problem wholly.

What needs to happen is the spending of more REAL dollars on education for the children and displaced workers.

A rebuild of the manufacturing sector and a tariff credits for debt payoff with countries we have deficits with.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 07:11 PM   #36 (permalink)
....is off his meds...you were warned.
 
KMA-628's Avatar
 
Location: The Wild Wild West
The only problem is that you would have to increase the minimum wage by over 60% to get at $18,000/year.

That is a rather large increase that would never, ever be approved by any political party.
KMA-628 is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 07:21 PM   #37 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
Raising the minimum wage is a band-aid and doesn't solve the problem wholly.

What needs to happen is the spending of more REAL dollars on education for the children and displaced workers.

A rebuild of the manufacturing sector and a tariff credits for debt payoff with countries we have deficits with.
What manufacturing sector, pan?
Manufacturing jobs are not coming back to the US for a long time, if ever.

I do agree that we need our education to be better funded and would add that it needs to be directed toward the creation of new economy sectors.

I disagree that raising minimum wages are a band-aid. Even if it is, I still place band-aids on my cuts until they scab over so I don't get infected during the interim.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Last edited by smooth; 11-17-2004 at 07:24 PM..
smooth is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 07:34 PM   #38 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
Raising the minimum wage is a band-aid and doesn't solve the problem wholly.

What needs to happen is the spending of more REAL dollars on education for the children and displaced workers.

A rebuild of the manufacturing sector and a tariff credits for debt payoff with countries we have deficits with.
This is similar to what I said, except for the tariffs. And tariffs would be a horrible idea, unless the US is willing to wage economic warfare against the majority of other economic heavyweights.
alansmithee is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 07:46 PM   #39 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by smooth
What manufacturing sector, pan?
Manufacturing jobs are not coming back to the US for a long time, if ever.

I disagree that raising minimum wages are a band-aid. Even if it is, I still place band-aids on my cuts until my cuts scab over so I don't get infected in the interim.
You raise tariffs to an extent that other countries have on our goods and manufacturing will have to come back for people to afford anything. Increase of a HUGE tax base.

Plus, you offer tax initiatives and incentives to re-open plants.

I would also cut any aid to countries that did not have a liveable minimum wage and that violated our worker's laws. Savings of HUGE amounts spent in the name of foreign aid.

While I did state raising minimum wage is a band-aid it would require what Nixon did in '73 when the dollar was freefalling. That is a price freeze on all utilities.

What I would recommend is a voluntary raise in minimum wage jobs to $10/hour. Those companies participating would get tax credits and would get even more if they trained the workers for higher paying jobs. Small businesses, I would implement some form of credit where the wage increases and training were not a financial problem.

Those companies that did not participate would be taxed more, however they could get credit back by donating to local schools and colleges.

I would still use a price freeze on all utilities and food goods.

However, unlike Nixon I would keep this program implemented for a period of 5 years, not just short term.

Simultaneously, I would lower all tuitions at state funded colleges that accept federal funding. I would also put a limit on the money Dean's and other school officials make. There is no reason ANY dean needs to make over $500,000 and yet there are quite a few that pay their deans that.

This wouldn't be a long term government plan just long enough to hopefully invigorate the middle class and have it grow. Therefore raising tax revenues.

I would also increase money for the infrastructure, such as roads, rebuilding of government buildings and so on, so that construction would increase dramatically thereby adding even more money into the economy, more better paid workers who will be paying more in taxes. Not more by %age but more because they make more.

And for those that shake their heads, and say what about hands off business government, very simple. Like I said they don't have to participate. They just get no federal aid such as loans, contracts etc. Yes, it is blackmail but it is what is needed to get this country on top again.

And everything I said has been implemented in one form or another in times of financial difficulties in the US and every time they worked. Especially in the late 40's and 50's.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Last edited by pan6467; 11-17-2004 at 07:55 PM..
pan6467 is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 07:49 PM   #40 (permalink)
Insane
 
Location: Chicago
To all of you who say that paying a higher wage would massively hurt a company, this just isn't true. Studies done by MIT and the <a href="http://www.cura.umn.edu/reporter/04-Summ/Markusen-et-al.pdf">University of Minnesota</a> have shown that raising the pay of workers (not too high though) results in an increase of productivity. This in turn lowers the total cost of employing people. Take Costco and Wal-Mart for instance. Both are very succesful, though Wal-Mart is obviously bigger. One of the common things Wal-Mart does is to higher many workers part-time so that they can avoid paying any benefits to them. Costcos on the other hand pays their employees very well, on average $15 an hour compared to $6 or so for Wal-Mart. Most of their employees are full-time and also recieve full benefits. The prices at each store are still comparable. When one pays a low wage the company tends to have a higher turnover as well. This results in higher training costs and administrative costs.

I am personally sick of making $7 an hour for risking my career every day and would like to get paid a decent wage for flight instructing.
__________________
I prefer desert wines to dessert wines.

Dry and red
joemc91 is offline  
 

Tags
defend

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:36 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360