2010 Midterm Elections Thread

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

*sigh*

I'm with you. Being 'college poor' isn't really relatable to being 'poor' for a lot of reasons.

/not that some people aren't 'poor' in college, but the resources available for students are vastly different than the resources available for pretty much everyone else.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

*sigh*

Here, I'll break it down for the sake of argument...

9 * 40 = 360*4 = 1440$ per month pre tax.

This will be from my point of view in my area, since I talked about the 9$.

I live in probably the nicest apartment complex in town, but my apartment is 480 for two bedrooms.

so, 240$ with a roommate a month. (for the nicest place in town)
80 for energy, 30 for water. split two ways, 55$ a month.

For medical insurance, with a 500$ deductible it's 11 some dollars per check, so 44 dollars per month.

My car is a little bit nicer than someone on minimum wage but it's around 400 with full coverage every 6 months. We'll go with that, but that's probably quite a bit more coverage for a nicer car than someone on minimum wage...so, 66$ per month.

I think right now we're at 405 a month, if the math I did in my head is correct. That gives us about a thousand (or 250 a week) to play with, before Uncle Sam the dickface, food, and miscellaneous get involved. I'm sure I missed something, but I can't think of it right now. All this is for naught, as I could cut costs even more if I was minimum wage. For instance, the production plant is close to alot of lower range apartments that are 350 for two rooms. Because they're pretty close, it would be easy to trade in the car for a moped which would be easier on gas and obviously the needless insurance. If I were a healthy young adult, probably go for the thousand dollar deductible and pay 6 dollars a check, or 24 dollars a month.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Well, we finally know who our senator will be for Washington - Patty Murray, returning for her, I think, fourth term. With this result I'm hoping that Dino Rossi goes away. I'm tired of voting against him - it's been three times now. Since eastern Washington likes him so much, I think he should run for something like mayor of Spokane.

Meanwhile, almost all of our congressional incumbants won, Democrat and Republican.

I'm curious what the voter turnout results were everywhere? In King County (Seattle and suburbs), they were expecting 68% of absentee ballots to be returned (our state is all-absentee now), but they're still counting the ballots and we're at 71% return rate already.

Our state voted down an income tax (though 35% voted for it and I think the issue will continue to come up), voted down an increase to our sales tax, and voted DOWN two initiatives that would have closed state liquor stores and permitted booze to be sold in every grocery, drug and convenience store. Sometimes my state surprises me! We legalized medical marijuana years ago and permit Joe Neighbor with a permit to grow it at home, but we want ONLY the state to sell booze.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

I live in probably the nicest apartment complex in town, but my apartment is 480 for two bedrooms.

Wow, where do you live? You *might* be able to find a studio in a bad part of town or in the hick part of my state for that. But my new husband and I live (for now) in a 2-bedroom apartment - spacious and updated interior, but building from the 1980s - in the suburbs of Seattle and pay $1,245 per month just for rent. And that's actually a really good deal around here considering our place is about 1,100 square feet.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I do admit that the UAW got ridiculously greedy and strayed from its original purpose. UAW leaders are as out of touch as high level executives are.

THIS.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

Wow, where do you live?

In the Fort Smith area, which is the 2nd biggest city in the state.

You *might* be able to find a studio in a bad part of town or in the hick part of my state for that. But my new husband and I live (for now) in a 2-bedroom apartment - spacious and updated interior, but building from the 1980s - in the suburbs of Seattle and pay $1,245 per month just for rent. And that's actually a really good deal around here considering our place is about 1,100 square feet.

I'm actually about to downgrade to a one bedroom for about 360 a month. I haven't figured out what to do with a whole extra bedroom. This complex has a pool, weight room, and lounge as well.

[AGDee]

You forgot about the two kids. You're talking about a very young person, I'm talking about someone with a Master's or PhD who has worked for 25 years and has been laid off and now can't find a job for more than $9/hr. But it's their fault, because they were irresponsible. For a healthy young adult, you can live on practically nothing, I will agree but for how long?

The cost of living in Arkansas is among the lowest in the country. The year I bought my 1300 sq ft ranch fixer upper with no garage, on a small subdivision lot for $137,000 in one of the lower priced areas that is still safe, my brother bought a 2500 sq ft.newly remodeled colonial on 10 acres, lakefront with 5 camping/RV hookups that he could rent out if he chose for $110,000. My house on the east side or west side of the metro Detroit area would have been about $240K back then. With taxes and insurance, when I purchased my house, my house payment was $1500/month. Taxes and insurance alone are now $275/month. The LOWEST cost apartments, which are government subsidized, are $575 a month for a one bedroom, $900 for a three bedroom. Thankfully, interest rates have dropped so my mortgage is now only $950 a month.

Car insurance in Arkansas is clearly much cheaper too. My daughter's car has minimum coverage and if it was the only car in the family would be $728 every 6 months. More than $100 a month just for that and that's no car payment. The majority of jobs in this area are in the inner city with no livable housing nearby and no mass transportation. You have to have a car. Mopeds in 10 degree weather with 2 feet of snow are not an option either.

My heat/electric bill is $202 a month on the budget plan (equal payments throughout the year to avoid having a $400 bill in January and February and a $50 bill in April when no heat or A/C is needed). Water bill is $50 a month and I never water my lawn.

My health insurance is $75 per pay period plus deductibles and co-pays. Monthly prescriptions for my family = $200/month when I purchase them at the pharmacy in my building, which gives us a 40% discount on co-pays. 3 ER visits this year for my daughter= $375. Her MRI= $125. In the last month alone she's been to her doctor and two specialists at a total of $125 in co-pays.

Gas for me to get to work is $45 a week. I work 25 miles from my home because I don't want to live in a slum. My car payment is $245 a month and I put half down on one of the lower priced cars out there. Because I'm still paying on it, I have to pay for full coverage so I pay $1000 every 6 months.

I've blown your $9/hr budget just with my mortgage and utilities. I didn't include cable, internet or phone because I recognize that those are luxuries. Someone making $9/hr would never save enough to put half down on a car.

I know your answer is "move". The whole country can't live in Arkansas because there aren't enough jobs there. If we all moved to Arkansas, housing prices would skyrocket because demand would be so high.

You are living in a bubble.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

THIS.

I do agree on that point and I'm actually not as liberal fiscally as I sound in this thread. I'm not a "give everybody welfare" person.. I believe in a workfare type of system. I believe that affordable day care needs to be available. I understand that sometimes things happen to people who are very educated and previously made very good money that devastates them financially, be it a medical problem that prevents them from working or a layoff in a depressed economy. The number of factors that led to last year's bankruptcies for Chrysler and GM is huge. It became "the perfect storm" for the auto industry and there is no one person to blame.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by AGDee

You forgot about the two kids.

Two kids are irrelevant.

If you're throwing in cost factors that have to do with irresponsibility, you mind as well throw in someone who racked up thousands of dollars of debt too in your little idea.

You're talking about a very young person

Not really.

I'm talking about a single person. The costs would be the same for any single person except for perhaps 50 to a hundred more in healthcare a month.

You are living in a bubble.

And you are living in a shitty state.

I'm not denying anything about other states. Costs are higher, I'm sure. But I showed how it 9$ can be done in Arkansas which was the state I was referring to when saying that 9$ can be easy to live on. That might not be the same elsewhere, but my experience shows that the government is usually the one who removes the cheap living from others.

For example zoning regulations in Cleveland, driving up the cost of rent/price of doing business. In places where the government is removed from daily life, you'll usually see cheaper rents and a greater ability to live on 9$ an hour. This is where the argument comes full circle. I want to remove the things that your leaders have put into place which unintentionally hurt the poor consistently. You seek to keep them in place. The Michigan government has consistently voted towards economic statism which generally makes it quite difficult to help the poor. Your government has made it impossible to live. Not industries offering 9$ an hour. Your government.

[srmom]

Roofing is a really dangerous job and most roofers end up injuring themselves pretty badly or getting asbestosis or silicosis from inhaling all the crap they inhale. Tar burns are pretty awful too. Many jobs are paid better because they are hazardous.

Most roofers in this day and age are getting picked up out on the corner in front of the local Home Depot.

My point is, is that when union wages are so high that a business owner has to hire illegal workers to stay competitive in the marketplace, which is what is happening nationwide, those union wages don't mean squat, and in fact are hurting roofers who would rather hire Americans at a fair market rate and American non union manual laborers. See one example in excerpt of article below:

State governments that contract jobs paid for with stimulus money will be required to pay workers on construction projects union wages rather than market rates -- good news for workers but good news for not as many of them.

The Office of Management and Budget included in the $787 billion stimulus bill the Davis-Bacon provision, a 1931 law typically only used on federal highway projects. But under the new spending plan, Davis-Bacon will apply to all state and local jobs on energy, housing, agriculture or construction.

Higher costs per project mean fewer projects completed, especially since some "shovel ready" projects were bid as non-union jobs. Some local officials and economists say the union wage mandate means taxpayer dollars won't be stretched as far as otherwise was planned.

"All this recovery money being spent, you have a lot of hands out," said economist Jack Kyser. "And so people have said OK, this has to conform to Davis Bacon, which means prevailing wage. And so you get hung up. So as I say, you're going to have projects, but you're not going to have the money go as far as you'd wanted it to go."

Los Angeles County officials who received $8 million in Community Development Block Grant money to weatherize homes for low-income people said they typically bid the job low and pay about $15 an hour for a worker to caulk windows. However, under union scale, that job pays $25 an hour and $5 in benefits, so instead of repairing 100 homes, they might do 50 homes for the same price.

Elsewhere, the union wage for a plumber in Long Island is $45 an hour, the market rate is $30. In Las Vegas, the Davis-Bacon wage for a glass worker is $57 an hour, a job the Nevada State Housing division currently pays $15 to do.

Now, who's this helping? I guess the few lucky union members who get the jobs - forget the rest of the Americans who would take the work at the market rate, or the people who would benefit from the project.

That's the exact reason I used "unions" in general and in a global sense, and not any one specific union (or any specific subset of workers). Unions attempt to (and often do) serve their own membership admirably, but that's the whole point: they likely have a negative effect on the whole to benefit the few.

Exactly...

Anecdotes about 98 dollars an hour and drinking beer are as useful as "welfare queens" buying lobsters and driving brand new SUVs.

See my earlier post (2 pages ago) where I linked table of actual union wages, that is not anecdotal.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

It doesn't assume an infinite number, but it does kind of assume that the union could expand to provide all jobs in that sector, or provide the influence to raise wages and benefits for non-union members in the same sector. I don't believe that assumption is actually necessary though. An alternative assumption is that without the high union wage more people would have jobs rather than the same number of people having jobs at a lower wage. But that too is simply an assumption.

I agree the assumptions are unnecessary. However, saying "people can just join the union" or "people can just learn the over-valued trade" isn't logical at all - there are reasonable (and startlingly low) limits to the ability to do this (which is the crux of my argument, and the part that's missing above).

Past a certain point, there isn't any more painting to be done. Yet those painting dollars have still drained the available cash (which is also finite, although admittedly in a much more complex fashion).

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I agree the assumptions are unnecessary. However, saying "people can just join the union" or "people can just learn the over-valued trade" isn't logical at all - there are reasonable (and startlingly low) limits to the ability to do this (which is the crux of my argument, and the part that's missing above).

And I was never really saying that either. Although I do think that if people are so jealous of *trade* then they should actually go into it. The reason they're not going into it is probably why the pay rate is so high. Plumbers for example.

Past a certain point, there isn't any more painting to be done. Yet those painting dollars have still drained the available cash (which is also finite, although admittedly in a much more complex fashion).

Of course. However, as I said, it comes down to the data rather than the assumptions we're making.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Although I do think that if people are so jealous of *trade* then they should actually go into it. The reason they're not going into it is probably why the pay rate is so high. Plumbers for example.

Who's jealous of a trade? We are just saying it's ridiculous that Bob the HS dropout makes more painting cars than some of us that are teachers or social workers, etc.

Some of us believe that a lot of the unions have outlived their purpose and are just too greedy (See UAW).

And you telling someone to "Just get a union job than" is no different than me telling a poor working class person to "Go find a better job".

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Of course. However, as I said, it comes down to the data rather than the assumptions we're making.

So you want produced hard data to disprove the null re: microecon theory?

I mean . . .

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

Who's jealous of a trade? We are just saying it's ridiculous that Bob the HS dropout makes more painting cars than some of us that are teachers or social workers, etc.

Some of us believe that a lot of the unions have outlived their purpose and are just too greedy (See UAW).

And you telling someone to "Just get a union job than" is no different than me telling a poor working class person to "Go find a better job".

Is it ridiculous if Bob the HS dropout does a better job than you could? You don't have to hire Bob the HS dropout to be your plumber if you don't want to. Generally you're hiring Bob because you think he's experienced enough to do the job right.

I think you think you're arguing against my opinion of unions, which I haven't actually put out here.

It's not "get a union job you lazy bum" it's "if you think that they're paid so much for doing so little why aren't you jumping on that gravy train?" When you say "Bob the HS Dropout" you're pretty much showing your disdain for the person or position despite the fact that most trades are fairly complex and/or have serious drawbacks such as physical labor or dealing with human feces.

It's the same attitude as that of people who talk about welfare queens living high on the hog off TANF, WIC and Food Stamps. They always have some anecdote of someone doing something 'extravagent' or having a nice car on public aid, make assumptions and extrapolate that to the whole. They'd never get rid of all their assets to be poor so they could live off the "government teat" but they talk like that's what the poor people already did.

Originally Posted by KSig RC

So you want produced hard data to disprove the null re: microecon theory?

I mean . . .

I don't do econ. All I was doing was pointing out the flaws in the argument of someone who claimed to only care about the logic. The only way to move past the philosophical arguments or opinion-based anecdata is to actually support the argument with data. Until then, it is only an opinion, or even a well reasoned position, but without actual evidence to back it up you're not getting further.