More Americans Die of Poverty than Terrorism

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

I don't know....tell me what the unemployment rate is again?

So you're saying that there is absolutely no one looking for a job at the entry-level...

You're looking at it from a minimum wage prospective. Look at our unemployment rates. It's clear that something IS stopping someone with "no experience" to gain an entry-level job. What do you think that something is?

Isn't minimum wage the topic being discussed?

And when did I say that people aren't looking for entry level jobs?

I'm reading your argument as "if companies can't hire you for pennies, they won't hire you at all." This doesn't makes sense, since minimum wage existed pre-recession when our unemployment rate was much lower.

ETA: I think the thing that's stopping people from getting job is the influx of job seekers. People who are used to making well above minimum wage are scrambling trying to get minimum wage jobs, but the applicant pools have swelled. This is not an effect of minimum wage in and of itself.

If companies could pay, say, $3/hour to applicants, that doesn't mean that they'd hire more people. That just means they'd be getting cheap labor. That wouldn't have a massive effect on unemployment.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

Isn't minimum wage the topic being discussed?

My bad, I meant you're looking at it as if minimum wage is natural.

And when did I say that people aren't looking for entry level jobs?

That would have to be your assumption to come to that conclusion.

I'm reading your argument as "if companies can't hire you for pennies, they won't hire you at all." This doesn't makes sense, since minimum wage existed pre-recession when our unemployment rate was much lower.

I wouldn't read it as that because it makes no sense. I don't know what a company would hire for, but I would imagine it to be whatever the market equilibrium wage rate was.

ETA: I think the thing that's stopping people from getting job is the influx of job seekers. People who are used to making well above minimum wage are scrambling trying to get minimum wage jobs, but the applicant pools have swelled. This is not an effect of minimum wage in and of itself.

Disagree, and here's why...

If companies could pay, say, $3/hour to applicants, that doesn't mean that they'd hire more people. That just means they'd be getting cheap labor. That wouldn't have a massive effect on unemployment.

So you think that Wal-Mart wouldn't, for example, remove one person's 7.25 salary for two people's three dollar salary and have those two people be personal shoppers around the store or some such. I mean, this is getting theoretical...but you could vastly improve customer service if you could double the amount of people you had working in your store. Improved customer service could mean a great deal more business, etc. And companies wouldn't be getting "cheap labor" they would be getting whatever labor the market demands. Currently, there really aren't many people on minimum wage (relatively speaking), which means that companies AREN'T being cheap...when they certainly could be.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I think the assumption that employers will hire more people at lower wages instead of the same number of people at lower wages is an optimistic one on behalf of anti-minimum wage proponents.

It is your assumption that it is an optimistic one. We have not seen it in practice, so we cannot say.

EW if you're anti-minimum wage and anti-TANF and other welfare/entitlements... what are you going to do with someone who now might be working but doesn't make enough to eat? Or feed their kid? Or pay rent?

Well the government does a great deal to harm these things, so it would be partially their fault. This includes taxes on food, income, apartments, etc, etc. Food taxes especially are incredibly anti-poor. Obama broke his promises of not raising taxes on the middle class and the poor by raising the tobacco taxes, where cigarettes are overwhelmingly smoked by the poorer classes.

If we had more money to spend to create jobs, we would have more money to give to other people. I believe I am correct in saying that the United States is the most philanthropic nation in the world. Just imagine if we had more of that money in our pockets to spend correctly instead of massive waste by the government.

I absolutely hate Rush Limbaugh...hate hate hate. Ignorant and misguided. But he did say this. "If I knew that my taxes were going to the most needy and that it wasn't incredibly wasted by the government, I would ask for more taxes." That's sort of how I feel.

I highly recommend Morgan Spurlock's Minimum Wage episode of 30 days. As it is, a couple working on minimum wage can hardly support themselves assuming nothing bad happens. Then comes the ER bill for an infection or injury.

Watched it awhile back. Did it really have any affect on you?

"It would be much truer to say that money is one of the greatest instruments of freedom ever invented by man. It is money which in existing society opens an astounding range of choice to the poor man, a range greater than that which not many generations ago was open to the wealthy."
- F.A. Hayek "The Road to Serfdom"

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

So you think that Wal-Mart wouldn't, for example, remove one person's 7.25 salary for two people's three dollar salary and have those two people be personal shoppers around the store or some such. I mean, this is getting theoretical...but you could vastly improve customer service if you could double the amount of people you had working in your store. Improved customer service could mean a great deal more business, etc. And companies wouldn't be getting "cheap labor" they would be getting whatever labor the market demands. Currently, there really aren't many people on minimum wage (relatively speaking), which means that companies AREN'T being cheap...when they certainly could be.

I'm not sure if you've ever worked in a menial job, but being paid low wages does not increase employee morale and would not positively impact customer service. Employees would be more concerned with "Wow. How am I going to pay rent when I'm spending all of my time here at $3/hr" and not "How can I make the next customer's visit more tolerable."

So, in essence, you'd have more pissed off people running around pissing off customers.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

It is your assumption that it is an optimistic one. We have not seen it in practice, so we cannot say.

We have in fact seen it in practice. It was just long enough ago that the results are incomparable. Also when preface with "i think" a statement is naturally one's thought.

Well the government does a great deal to harm these things, so it would be partially their fault. This includes taxes on food, income, apartments, etc, etc. Food taxes especially are incredibly anti-poor. Obama broke his promises of not raising taxes on the middle class and the poor by raising the tobacco taxes, where cigarettes are overwhelmingly smoked by the poorer classes.

Poor people don't pay income tax *been there* there is not an apartment tax, but there are property taxes that the landlords have to pay. If we remove all food tax and tobacco taxes, now what? That's maybe 5-10% of food dollars returned, that's not making a huge difference in the long run unfortunately.

If we had more money to spend to create jobs, we would have more money to give to other people. I believe I am correct in saying that the United States is the most philanthropic nation in the world. Just imagine if we had more of that money in our pockets to spend correctly instead of massive waste by the government.

Hence the reason I made this post.

I absolutely hate Rush Limbaugh...hate hate hate. Ignorant and misguided. But he did say this. "If I knew that my taxes were going to the most needy and that it wasn't incredibly wasted by the government, I would ask for more taxes." That's sort of how I feel.

But we don't live in a perfect world run by a perfect government, so what do we do with the imperfect one we have?

Watched it awhile back. Did it really have any affect on you?

Brought home exactly how on the edge people live even when working full time jobs. Right before i ended up in a very similar place myself, despite the fact that I still had the computers, phone, etc. all the trappings of having more money. It illustrates the point that the working poor are not being lazy, there simply is no way for all of them to get ahead. A relatively few make it, but that income gap is widening, not closing.

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

I'm not sure if you've ever worked in a menial job, but being paid low wages does not increase employee morale and would not positively impact customer service. Employees would be more concerned with "Wow. How am I going to pay rent when I'm spending all of my time here at $3/hr" and not "How can I make the next customer's visit more tolerable."

So, in essence, you'd have more pissed off people running around pissing off customers.

"How am I going to pay for the bus pass at $3/hr" even.

I just don't see how paying so little is anything but exploitation and why we should allow it.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Poor people don't pay income tax *been there* there is not an apartment tax, but there are property taxes that the landlords have to pay. If we remove all food tax and tobacco taxes, now what? That's maybe 5-10% of food dollars returned, that's not making a huge difference in the long run unfortunately.

That money thats not in the poor person's wallet. For them to use. It's robbery.

But we don't live in a perfect world run by a perfect government, so what do we do with the imperfect one we have?

Remove as much of it as possible, perhaps?

A relatively few make it, but that income gap is widening, not closing.

Why do you think that is...in an America full of more regulation, more welfare, more entitlements than ever before?

Any ideas? Christ. The government is the problem, not the solution.

I just don't see how paying so little is anything but exploitation and why we should allow it.

This is exactly why I abhor everything with your philosophy.

Who are you to say how one may spend their time? If a person chooses to work for 3 dollars, allow them to. Who are you to prohibit them?

This is on par with GLBT/minority rights. I see no difference between the two. Basic human rights.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Why would an employer hire more people rather than simply cut costs across the board?

Hire more people? Cut costs across the board? I'm not sure exactly in what context/reference you're speaking of.

Why would that racist employer actually hire a black person when there are plenty of white people unemployed in this economy?

Because a black person would work for less due to being traditionally disadvantaged, thus giving them a cost advantage.

Why do you assume that employers would NOT exploit and abuse workers when that is why the minimum wage was created in the first place? Or is it acceptable for workers to be exploited?

Impossible to exploit workers unless they consent to being exploited.

If they consent to being exploited, who are you to say they can't?

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

Because a black person would work for less due to being traditionally disadvantaged, thus giving them a cost advantage.

No.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

No.

Yes.

And I say that with some statistical background of the general education level, unemployment levels, etc.

Why do you think recent Hispanic immigrants are hired onto construction firms to a greater degree than other ethnicities? Cost advantage. They don't need high education levels nor even a grasp of the English language and work cheaper than their counterparts.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

This is exactly why I abhor everything with your philosophy.

Who are you to say how one may spend their time? If a person chooses to work for 3 dollars, allow them to. Who are you to prohibit them?

This is on par with GLBT/minority rights. I see no difference between the two. Basic human rights.

Wow. I find that so incredibly ignorant. Go 'choose' to work for that wage - $120 a week and tell me how you're going to pay rent or buy food or raise a kid.

If those are the only jobs being offered, or the only jobs for which you are qualified, it is not a real choice, is it? Workers are people. Businesses had their chance at not having a minimum wage and fucked it up. People weren't working in sweatshops because they chose that over other labor, they did it because it was choosing that or dying. And sent their children to work in mills because it was that or dying. And when the child lost a hand to unsafe machinery there were no more choices. The employer hired a new one. When the woman spoke up and asked for breaks, better wages, or ventilation she was fired (and sometimes worse) and the employer hired a new one. People sent their children off in orphan trains or abandoned them in orphanages because it was that or death. People weren't making living wages back in the glory days of pre-minimum wage awesomeness.

It's been done. Employers have already proven that they can and will treat people as garbage, so now they might as well at least pay them a reasonable wage for it.

Abuse and exploitation are not 'choice' they're abuse and exploitation, period.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Abuse and exploitation are not 'choice' they're abuse and exploitation, period.

This is the only thing that wasn't irrelevant.

They are choices. You enter into a working relationship with a job orr you don't. What happens at that job is your choice to either put up with or not put up with.

In the 1920's, the gap between the rich and poor was quite low. (lower than the USSR post-revolution..actually) It's a wonder what an economic mess the statists have created to push that gap.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

So you're saying that it's ok to pay black people less money because they're used to it?

At what point did I say anything like that?

And you don't think the fact that construction companies pay cash under the table to illegal immigrants without having to pay payroll taxes is part of the freaking problem?

That certainly happens. But many construction companies pay legal immigrants as well. Due to their cost advantage, which even recent immigrants have over the African-American populace. To be honest, I like illegal immigrants working here because they're circumventing this ridiculous minimum wage law for both their and their employers benefit. Win-Win.

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

If the employer is really racist, why would he tarnish his "pure" business by hiring a "colored" man?

How is a business pure?

And if black man knows that the employer is an "out" racist, why would he still pursue said job?

To gain employment, I imagine.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

I'm not sure if you've ever worked in a menial job, but being paid low wages does not increase employee morale and would not positively impact customer service.

Wait...so now employers WOULD want to pay more for people, if they're not required to. You guys have to make up your minds.

I was simply giving examples. There are many utilizations of people with lower wages that don't include customer service. (although your assumptions are depending that these people have families and aren't just high school kids looking for a job)

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

And if citizens and private charity do not provide, people starve? I really can't see any other conclusion.

Just one of the reasons I'm not a libertarian.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

Wait...so now employers WOULD want to pay more for people, if they're not required to. You guys have to make up your minds.

I'm saying that because you can at least survive on minimum wage, employees can focus their attention on the task at hand. If you have no hope of survival, that's where your mind is going to wander to.

I was simply giving examples. There are many utilizations of people with lower wages that don't include customer service. (although your assumptions are depending that these people have families and aren't just high school kids looking for a job)

We brought up families/adults because high school students aren't the only ones looking for/working in minimum wage positions.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

Wait...so now employers WOULD want to pay more for people, if they're not required to. You guys have to make up your minds.

I was simply giving examples. There are many utilizations of people with lower wages that don't include customer service. (although your assumptions are depending that these people have families and aren't just high school kids looking for a job)

Why would walmart care if they piss off customers if they know people will still shop there for the low prices. Not like they can shop anywhere else on their wages?

Our point is that your examples aren't making sense to us. Why would an employer hire more people rather than simply cut costs across the board? Why would that racist employer actually hire a black person when there are plenty of white people unemployed in this economy? Why do you assume that employers would NOT exploit and abuse workers when that is why the minimum wage was created in the first place? Or is it acceptable for workers to be exploited?