So, since the topic comes up often enough, I thought we could start a thread, separate from various news articles to discuss the theories or practical solutions to the subject..... Should there be a difference between "living" and "minimum"? How do we decide the difference, and how do we apply those decisions?
Well, this is going to be divisive. One thing I do know for sure, everyone is going to have a strong opinion, they're going to differ, and they're all going to still somehow be wrong.
daedalus wrote: Well, this is going to be divisive. One thing I do know for sure, everyone is going to have a strong opinion, they're going to differ, and they're all going to still somehow be wrong.
True, but since we're talking about this subject in basically a vacuum, hopefully it'll survive longer than in previous threads
Fair enough. I feel like "living wage" isn't a term that can be used in a meaningful way. I feel like it only means what you need it to mean to justify any argument you could be trying to make.
Minimum wage should be enough that it provides more incentive to seek it out instead of welfare benefits.
The issue is for everyone to be treated equally, everyone must be treated differently.
A "Living wage" for a 14 year old, a single 27 year old, a married 40 year old with wife and 3 kids, a single 30 year old with 4 kids all have different costs to be fulfilled. There is no single wage which can allow all of those scenarios to 'LIVE' to the standards discussed.
The issue then becomes 'well tax credits address the disparities and wellfare covers the kids...' Except when it doesn't... And then 'how many jobs?' should someone be expected to do? Should that be enforced by the government?
And then where does skill come in? If a single person with 3 kids needs 52k a year to 'live' in a particular area, should she be guaranteed to earn a wage which will pay 52k a year for 40 hours a week? Does that mean someone who does the exact same job as her but is single and only needs 23K a year, should he get a reduced wage? Or does everyone make the wage for the most costly lifestyle or family situation in the area?
It would have to boil down that the government would need to confiscate allw ages, give everyone a scientifically designed 'allowance' based upon their life needs, pay for 'critical costs' like healthcare and food before an employee gets a dime, and then everyone in society works for ' added value'. So your paycheck is simply funmoney over your socially alloted allowance for your work.
So everyone gets their allowance, and jobs would then pay a 'wage' on top of that allowance. So I wouldn't make 15$ an hour, I would make <my allowance for my life situation and fundamental needs> + 3.50 an hour.
Sounds cool to me... I would like to be treated like a perpetual teenager mowing my parents lawn for the rest of my life and have no worries about health care, retirement, taxes and not worry if I piss my money away that I won't eat or be homeless.
daedalus wrote: Fair enough. I feel like "living wage" isn't a term that can be used in a meaningful way. I feel like it only means what you need it to mean to justify any argument you could be trying to make.
Minimum wage should be enough that it provides more incentive to seek it out instead of welfare benefits.
Living wage is an easily quantifiable term by reference to objectively measured living costs in different localities.
In theory, people ought to be incentivised to work for piss poor wages if the alternative is starvation, i.e. zero welfare benefits, but actually they resort to crime and revolution instead when the wages offered are too piss poor.
daedalus wrote: Well, this is going to be divisive. One thing I do know for sure, everyone is going to have a strong opinion, they're going to differ, and they're all going to still somehow be wrong.
Living wage is an easily quantifiable term by reference to objectively measured living costs in different localities.
That's easy enough to say, but what costs do you account for in that? If it's food, water, electricity, and a roof, and nothing else, I have managed that on minimum wage before. If you include other things, bootstrappers start getting huffy and indignant.
In theory, people ought to be incentivised to work for piss poor wages if the alternative is starvation, i.e. zero welfare benefits, but actually they resort to crime and revolution instead when the wages offered are too piss poor.
daedalus wrote: Well, this is going to be divisive. One thing I do know for sure, everyone is going to have a strong opinion, they're going to differ, and they're all going to still somehow be wrong.
18+ minimum wage is very livable (if you work full time)
If you work part time you can easily live with other people and have enough to live.
I used to have internet, tv, power, petrol, food, rent, insurance and room to mess around with on minimum wage full time work. Its even easier with a partner.
But being younger means your employer can pay you less, as you dont need it as much as someone older.
I understand america is a big place, and they dont even share the same laws across the country, so the answer to your problem is much harder. But each area (state?) will need to work it out because im sure living in Texas will end up being very different to living in some other state or whatever.
A full time worker of 18+ should be able to rent a living space, have food, internet, power and have enough to travel at least. A part time worker can seek out help from the government and live with other people until their situation improves. I havent lived with other people, but its common for teens to share a house until they can move on, and after living with others they generally do move on.
But even then, we still have a problem of people just getting the benefit since that means they can skip the work side of things.
A full time worker of 18+ should be able to rent a living space, have food, internet, power and have enough to travel at least.
Why should they be able to have the internet?
A part time worker can seek out help from the government and live with other people until their situation improves. I havent lived with other people, but its common for teens to share a house until they can move on, and after living with others they generally do move on.
A full time working adult can do the exact same. It's done ALL THE TIME.
A full time worker of 18+ should be able to rent a living space, have food, internet, power and have enough to travel at least.
Why should they be able to have the internet?
A part time worker can seek out help from the government and live with other people until their situation improves. I havent lived with other people, but its common for teens to share a house until they can move on, and after living with others they generally do move on.
A full time working adult can do the exact same. It's done ALL THE TIME.
People should have the option of an internet connection. Why shouldn't they? The benefits to anyone with an internet connection are huge from an educational stand point. Banking, online deals and so on. Even finding work is made far easier by having an internet connection. Its a simple tool that can be of great benefit to someone on the minimum wage.
As for your second comment, unless an adult is working part time, the fact a full time working adult may need to share a living space to get by kinda shows that there is a problem.
Swastakowey wrote: In NZ
A full time worker of 18+ should be able to rent a living space, have food, internet, power and have enough to travel at least. A part time worker can seek out help from the government and live with other people until their situation improves. I havent lived with other people, but its common for teens to share a house until they can move on, and after living with others they generally do move on.
What constitutes a 'living space'? In my area, a 1 bedroom efficiency apartment is 1700$ a month minimum. You can go on craigslist and rent a room in a house for maybe 400$. Do people have the god-given right to live alone? I alss know within the same state, you can rent a whole 3 bedroom house for 600$ a month, so a state wide 'minimum' would not take in account the disparity.
How much does someone 'deserve' for food? And how much should someone be given in order to prepare and store said food? Stoves, Fridges, cooking tools all cost money.
Internet? Why not throw Cell phone on that too? You can go to public buildings for internet.
Power? How much is 'enough power'? What if someone lives in a living space which costs 200$ a month to heat in the winter due to the bad insulation while someone else pays 45$ a month? What about people who leave the lights on? how much is enough for power?
Travel? Travel? People have a right to travel? You mean commute to work? or go to Disneyworld because vacation is a god given right?
There are so many variables which makes it impossible to determine a single correct metric on what people should have the 'right' to be given as a wage, if such a thing even exists in this illusion of civilization we have where depending where on the planet you are standing determines so much about your situation. There is no single answer, and for everyone to be treated FAIR everyone needs to be treated differently, and humans (along with dogs and primates) will rebel at a fundamental level about inequity, even in the name of helping everyone along.
People should have the option of an internet connection. Why shouldn't they?
Because it's hardly a necessity and can be accessed for free from any public library?
As for your second comment, unless an adult is working part time, the fact a full time working adult may need to share a living space to get by kinda shows that there is a problem.
There are national and international standards for living space.
In the modern world, where many government duties and services are being moved into online only, it is not unreasonable to expect internet connection as a right.
You can't expect people to look up jobs online if they can't go online, and you can't expect people to look up jobs offline if jobs are advertised mainly online.
People should have the option of an internet connection. Why shouldn't they?
Because our schadenfreude depends upon people of a lower class than ourselves living with technology strictly mid-20th century or before. Though it's well established that poorer people generally have the deck stacked against them when it comes to the logistics of travel, they can always go to a public library if they need internet, right?
Kilkrazy wrote: There are national and international standards for living space.
In the modern world, where many government duties and services are being moved into online only, it is not unreasonable to expect internet connection as a right.
You can't expect people to look up jobs online if they can't go online, and you can't expect people to look up jobs offline if jobs are advertised mainly online.
A "Living wage" for a 14 year old, a single 27 year old, a married 40 year old with wife and 3 kids, a single 30 year old with 4 kids all have different costs to be fulfilled. There is no single wage which can allow all of those scenarios to 'LIVE' to the standards discussed.
And this is basically what I'm talking about. Your "typical" high school age worker doesn't actually NEED a "living" wage, but then there does still, in many ways, need to be a "minimum" wage that people are paid.
Personally, I would define "minimum" wage as the ability to feed yourself, house yourself, transport yourself, clothe yourself, and conduct business activities (internet/basic phone or cell phone).
Living Wage would be all of the above, with the caveat that you could afford "nicer" clothing, private transport even if it isn't reasonable. As well as being able to afford other niceties, such as Cable/Sat TV, gaming consoles/leisure items, as well as the ability to support and raise offspring.
All of that of course varies from location to location, because real estate prices in Salem, MA are going to be a lot different to those in Salem, OR. (which I don't think anyone has or will argue against)
I include internet/phone in "minimum" because of the simple fact that so many employers use an almost exclusively online application process, and so much of that business is done online that computers/laptops have become a near necessity.
Because our schadenfreude depends upon people of a lower class than ourselves living with technology strictly mid-20th century or before. Though it's well established that poorer people generally have the deck stacked against them when it comes to the logistics of travel, they can always go to a public library if they need internet, right?
Our internet and cable was one of the first things we cut when I lost my job (and was working two part time jobs) in 2008.
When I needed to use the internet, I did so from one part time job on my lunch break, or went to the library.
I include internet/phone in "minimum" because of the simple fact that so many employers use an almost exclusively online application process, and so much of that business is done online that computers/laptops have become a near necessity.
And libraries and their facilities are for.....what then?
I include internet/phone in "minimum" because of the simple fact that so many employers use an almost exclusively online application process, and so much of that business is done online that computers/laptops have become a near necessity.
And libraries and their facilities are for.....what then?
For the homeless to sinkwash their junk and go BM?
A full time worker of 18+ should be able to rent a living space, have food, internet, power and have enough to travel at least.
Why should they be able to have the internet?
A part time worker can seek out help from the government and live with other people until their situation improves. I havent lived with other people, but its common for teens to share a house until they can move on, and after living with others they generally do move on.
A full time working adult can do the exact same. It's done ALL THE TIME.
People should have the option of an internet connection. Why shouldn't they?
The benefits to anyone with an internet connection are huge from an educational stand point. Banking, online deals and so on. Even finding work is made far easier by having an internet connection. Its a simple tool that can be of great benefit to someone on the minimum wage.
As for your second comment, unless an adult is working part time, the fact a full time working adult may need to share a living space to get by kinda shows that there is a problem.
I honestly don't feel that Internet Connection should be a required item in Living Wages; Libraries have full access to the internet for free/rather cheaply. While you could argue against it for gas/car maintenance, a bike is cheaper, healthier, and in general better for you.
Someone working full time on minimum wage as a laborer. Works from 8-6. Wakes up, all libraries are closed, gets home from work, all libraries are closed. Mc Donalds doesnt allow for much, if any use of their free wireless and usually they are off.
Where do they get the internet for an emergency banking on a wedsnday night? No banks are open?
Working full time usually means you are working when free wifi areas are open.
The internet is also a great tool for job searching, learning, getting into a study, finding cheap items of clothing or furniture and so on. All of which can not be done for most full time workers on the minimum wage, if they cannot afford a basic internet package.
Slarg232 wrote: I honestly don't feel that Internet Connection should be a required item in Living Wages; Libraries have full access to the internet for free/rather cheaply. While you could argue against it for gas/car maintenance, a bike is cheaper, healthier, and in general better for you.
Moving it along nicely, yes we are.
Now someone make up the approved food list for the poors, something about how they should do manual labor instead of college, 2 jobs at a time, and so on, so we have all the boxes checked.
In my opinion I'd let the free market decide for this problem. You might ask why, but the answer is simple: Determining a universal minimun wage which is large is enough for living is almost impossible, as it would have to be determined for each person induvidually, so having a market to determine the minnimun wage should be the easiest solution.
Swastakowey wrote: Someone working full time on minimum wage as a laborer. Works from 8-6. Wakes up, all libraries are closed, gets home from work, all libraries are closed. Mc Donalds doesnt allow for much, if any use of their free wireless and usually they are off.
8-6?
Sorry, that's not the hours of, well, pretty much any American library. They're almost uniformly open until 8PM during the week, some 9PM.
Oh, and then they're all open on the weekends. Because, if you're only working 40 hours, you have time open somewhere.
Where do they get the internet for an emergency banking on a wedsnday night? No banks are open?
Emergency Banking on a Wednesday night? What kind of emergency? The kind where you need money? That's what ATMs are for.
The kind where you need to transfer money? None of that will be processed until the next day's business hours anyways.
The kind where your debit card isn't working? That's what the 800 number on the back of your card is for.
Working full time usually means you are working when free wifi areas are open.
This is just nonsense. I can think of at least 8 places within 5 minutes of my house that have free wifi and are open until 10PM.
Slarg232 wrote: I honestly don't feel that Internet Connection should be a required item in Living Wages; Libraries have full access to the internet for free/rather cheaply. While you could argue against it for gas/car maintenance, a bike is cheaper, healthier, and in general better for you.
Moving it along nicely, yes we are.
Now someone make up the approved food list for the poors, something about how they should do manual labor instead of college, 2 jobs at a time, and so on, so we have all the boxes checked.
I disagree (mostly) with almost all of those; "approved food list" shouldn't exist; if someone wants to be poor and buy Cigs/Alcohol (with their own money), than see my Sig for my opinion on that.
Also, while I have no idea HOW to actually do it, I would love for College to be cheaper/freemium, as I am a firm believer in education (Though we will need a far better education system before that becomes a good idea).
Anyone who wants a fair bit of pocket money should work two jobs. Doesn't matter if they are poor or middle class. Should it be required? No, absolutely not. Should it be an option? Why not?
Swastakowey wrote: Someone working full time on minimum wage as a laborer. Works from 8-6. Wakes up, all libraries are closed, gets home from work, all libraries are closed. Mc Donalds doesnt allow for much, if any use of their free wireless and usually they are off.
Where do they get the internet for an emergency banking on a wedsnday night? No banks are open?
Working full time usually means you are working when free wifi areas are open.
The internet is also a great tool for job searching, learning, getting into a study, finding cheap items of clothing or furniture and so on. All of which can not be done for most full time workers on the minimum wage, if they cannot afford a basic internet package.
Can't use the internet without a computer and IPhone device.
d-usa wrote: "Free" wifi usually comes with a required purchase of coffee that will land someone on the "how can they be poor if they can afford coffee here" list.
d-usa wrote: "Free" wifi usually comes with a required purchase of coffee that will land someone on the "how can they be poor if they can afford coffee here" list.
Dude. Doesn't matter if you're poor or not, NO ONE can afford Starbucks.
This is just nonsense. I can think of at least 8 places within 5 minutes of my house that have free wifi and are open until 10PM.
So then someone should be able to afford a laptop on the "living wage", but no internet connection?
Heaven forbid you sacrifice something to save for something else.
You can get a Chromebook for less than $200. According to MIT's lovely little calculator, saving your discretionary budget for three months will get you there just fine.
Or, you know, you can use the free ones at the library.
minimum wage should be just that, the minimum you can pay someone per hour at a job...
its simple enough to get.
living should be just that, a wage that allows for a person to reasonably live... its a bit more complicated because do things like "being able to support 2+ depandant" fall into your living wage, or theirs?
the issue most people have, is that not only can they not agree on what a living wage should be, but they also think the minimum you should be allowed to pay anyone should be a living wage.
Lots of people have verry different opinions on "living" wages, but once people are expecting one person working at mc donalds to be able to support themselves and multiple dependents, its crossing over into fantasy land.
Swastakowey wrote: Someone working full time on minimum wage as a laborer. Works from 8-6. Wakes up, all libraries are closed, gets home from work, all libraries are closed. Mc Donalds doesnt allow for much, if any use of their free wireless and usually they are off.
8-6?
Sorry, that's not the hours of, well, pretty much any American library. They're almost uniformly open until 8PM during the week, some 9PM.
Oh, and then they're all open on the weekends. Because, if you're only working 40 hours, you have time open somewhere.
Where do they get the internet for an emergency banking on a wedsnday night? No banks are open?
Emergency Banking on a Wednesday night? What kind of emergency? The kind where you need money? That's what ATMs are for.
The kind where you need to transfer money? None of that will be processed until the next day's business hours anyways.
The kind where your debit card isn't working? That's what the 800 number on the back of your card is for.
Working full time usually means you are working when free wifi areas are open.
This is just nonsense. I can think of at least 8 places within 5 minutes of my house that have free wifi and are open until 10PM.
As I said in my first comment, America is a very different place. I haven't been to America (and thank goodness for that). You cant transfer money between accounts on an atm here, transferring money happens in like 3 hours too, nor do our library staff have to work oddly long hours or weekends (they are people too) so outside of take out foods and the theater most places are closed by the time most people finish work.
I still think internet should be a basic need for a full time worker. I dont care if YOUR house has internet within 5 minutes for free. Mine doesnt. Unless I wanna travel by train to wellington (over an hour away) on a week night. The library is closed and so on. So why not ensure the majority of people have that little bit (its not expensive for internet I assume) of money to spare for an internet connection? Just encase they dont have internet at 8PM within even half an hour of their place.
Let me emphasize something.... especially how important this is for the younger peeps, in their early 30s and below: internet access is a fundamental requirement of civilized life.
I dare you to confront these young folks and inform them that this a luxury. You are imperiling something almost as important as water or power or gas for your car.
Let me emphasize something.... especially how important this is for the younger peeps, in their early 30s and below: internet access is a fundamental requirement of civilized life.
I dare you to confront these young folks and inform them that this a luxury. You are imperiling something almost as important as water or power or gas for your car.
They know nothing else.
I AM a 20 something who spends 6 hours or so on his computer.
Please do not act as though people in my age group are incapable of seperating themselves from their computer.
That's why I sort of hate this generation. Do you know how old I was before I saw a pixelated nipple on a computer screen? I was like 26, and it was over a screechy-ass 14.4k modem that took me forever to get installed because I had to spend hours screwing with the DIP switches and the init strings. Before that it was (ironically considering some of the previous comments in this thread) various cultures indigenous populations via National Geographics at the public library.
Meanwhile these little bastards wake up in the morning with essentially a little supercomputer in their pocket that is also a high-speed conduit to as much pornography as they might care to watch, whenever they might want to!
They don't even know what the world used to be like, man.
Swastakowey wrote: So why not ensure the majority of people have that little bit (its not expensive for internet I assume) of money to spare for an internet connection?
Because boot-straps.
In 'Murica, everyone paying an extra 10 cents in taxes so that you can have free internet is a travesty, you working three part-time jobs making 7 bucks an hour so you can afford to have access to the same resources as the rich white kids who never had to work a day in there life is a virtue.
Plus everyone knows its a slippery-slope. We start paying for other people to have free internet... why next thing you know we'll be paying for them to drive Lamborghinis, eat lobster everyday and play Planetside 2 on Ultra-settings with their $3000 computer! = 0
Our internet and cable was one of the first things we cut when I lost my job (and was working two part time jobs) in 2008.
When I needed to use the internet, I did so from one part time job on my lunch break, or went to the library.
They're certainly not rights, or necessities.
This is just nonsense. I can think of at least 8 places within 5 minutes of my house that have free wifi and are open until 10PM.
Heaven forbid you sacrifice something to save for something else.
You can get a Chromebook for less than $200. According to MIT's lovely little calculator, saving your discretionary budget for three months will get you there just fine.
Or, you know, you can use the free ones at the library.
Are you positive that your experiences are universally representative?
Is there any chance there are factors you might not be considering?
Stop for a moment and try to play a bit of devil's advocate in your head for the side you disagree with. Can you find any challenges to the position you've taken?
Try approaching the issue by putting yourself in the situation described, what things could go wrong and/or complicate solutions you've purposed?
I still cant get over how sickening some American food is. An american style wendies burgers opened here, and the cheese is like some weird yellow plastic. It doesnt even melt properly. Plus the bacon is like sun dried or something.
I still cant get over how sickening some American food is. An american style wendies burgers opened here, and the cheese is like some weird yellow plastic. It doesnt even melt properly. Plus the bacon is like sun dried or something.
Stuff like this also creeps me out.
Spoiler:
If Murican Cheese isn't melting for you, you ain't cooking it long enough.
Minimum wage was enacted in the thirties, with the following justification:
"In my Inaugural I laid down the simple proposition that nobody is going to starve in this country. It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living." - FDR
That minimum wage fails to keep pace with inflation and regularly fails to meet its mandate is simply evidence of the weakness of our politicians in failing to support the citizens, rather than the business interests.
The same arguments are raised every time the minimum wage's effective rate falls below the living level. These are the same arguments raised in opposition to the initial establishment of the minimum wage, the same arguments that have been proven false time and again. Those who keep voicing these arguments not only fail to recognize history, but do so largely against their own interest. In a capitalist society, a high minimum wage ensures that customers exist for products.
That's why I sort of hate this generation. Do you know how old I was before I saw a pixelated nipple on a computer screen? I was like 26, and it was over a screechy-ass 14.4k modem that took me forever to get installed because I had to spend hours screwing with the DIP switches and the init strings. Before that it was (ironically considering some of the previous comments in this thread) various cultures indigenous populations via National Geographics at the public library.
Meanwhile these little bastards wake up in the morning with essentially a little supercomputer in their pocket that is also a high-speed conduit to as much pornography as they might care to watch, whenever they might want to!
They don't even know what the world used to be like, man.
I remember those days...
Kids truly don't know "how good" they have it now.
That's why I sort of hate this generation. Do you know how old I was before I saw a pixelated nipple on a computer screen? I was like 26, and it was over a screechy-ass 14.4k modem that took me forever to get installed because I had to spend hours screwing with the DIP switches and the init strings. Before that it was (ironically considering some of the previous comments in this thread) various cultures indigenous populations via National Geographics at the public library.
Meanwhile these little bastards wake up in the morning with essentially a little supercomputer in their pocket that is also a high-speed conduit to as much pornography as they might care to watch, whenever they might want to!
They don't even know what the world used to be like, man.
I remember those days...
Kids truly don't know "how good" they have it now.
Let me emphasize something.... especially how important this is for the younger peeps, in their early 30s and below: internet access is a fundamental requirement of civilized life.
I dare you to confront these young folks and inform them that this a luxury. You are imperiling something almost as important as water or power or gas for your car.
They know nothing else.
As someone who's 30 years old, your generalization annoys me. It IS important. However, it's not as important as you suggest it is, at least not to me.
I spend a lot of time in front of a computer, yes. I'm a programmer, by recreation and profession. My other hobbies involve reading (strictly hard copy), brewing beer, baking, and camping. Oh, and wargames too, I guess.
My point is that we're not all these socially awkward manchildren lit exclusively by the glow of our screens. Some of us are not altogether completely shallow human beings.
That's why I sort of hate this generation. Do you know how old I was before I saw a pixelated nipple on a computer screen? I was like 26, and it was over a screechy-ass 14.4k modem that took me forever to get installed because I had to spend hours screwing with the DIP switches and the init strings. Before that it was (ironically considering some of the previous comments in this thread) various cultures indigenous populations via National Geographics at the public library.
Meanwhile these little bastards wake up in the morning with essentially a little supercomputer in their pocket that is also a high-speed conduit to as much pornography as they might care to watch, whenever they might want to!
They don't even know what the world used to be like, man.
I remember those days...
Kids truly don't know "how good" they have it now.
What are you, old?
37.
I remember the dial-up age.
Even better... I remember going through the Encyclopedia books to learn things.
Let me emphasize something.... especially how important this is for the younger peeps, in their early 30s and below: internet access is a fundamental requirement of civilized life.
I dare you to confront these young folks and inform them that this a luxury. You are imperiling something almost as important as water or power or gas for your car.
They know nothing else.
As someone who's 30 years old, your generalization annoys me. It IS important. However, it's not as important as you suggest it is, at least not to me.
I spend a lot of time in front of a computer, yes. I'm a programmer, by recreation and profession. My other hobbies involve reading (strictly hard copy), brewing beer, baking, and camping. Oh, and wargames too, I guess.
I was referring to the teeny-boppers and 20-somethings.
And, I'm not being mean here... but, honestly, ask yourself if you believe these young'n will the just "accept it" if we told them that it's a luxury?
Kids probably don't even know that the "save" icon used to be an actual physical thing.
There have actually been several instances of public discussion within tech discussion boards that I follow of that exact thing and whether it's time to transition the floppy icon to something else.
What I don't understand is why people who are proponents of free market capitalism -- a system that, by its very nature, pushes most people to the bottom of a hierarchical income structure -- always seem to be the same people who are calling those at the bottom 'lazy freeloaders' (or some variation) and arguing that they deserve all they get (which is usually nothing).
Not everyone can be wealthy and successful, the system just doesn't allow it, which is why there should be some provision for people at the bottom.
I would be more interested to know how much work is actually required to keep a person. At the dawn of the industrial revolution, many envisioned a future where machines did all the work, and people would be free to pursue art, culture and learning. But that isn't what we got. Even though machines do do all the work, people just got fired and told to "feth off".
My suspicion is that the amount of work required for a modern person to have all the basics is probably quite small (on a person to person basis), maybe just a couple of hours work per day, for a family. The problem is mortgages and rents are added on top of that, and are usually set in a very arbitrary way based on what can be squeezed out of people.
The cost of living reflects wages and vice versa. This is why gentrification usually displaces poorer people who are unable to meet the expected yield for their area. The cost of living and wages are probably quite finely tuned, based on what people can bare.
I think the easy solution would be more and better trade unions with the power to broker better rates for selling labour, and more stringent regulation of the housing and renting market. I think it's sad when people aren't able to afford a home because they have to compete with big conglomerates speculating on a the housing market.
Goodness... I remember when my city library (where I grew up) got rid of that search engine and started using the DOS computer based one.... I seriously had issues finding things for a good while til I figured out the computer systems. I honestly had to go to the librarians (who had the DOS system for a couple years at least, already) to get help finding stuff.
And, as I pointed out earlier, look at how many employers have an online application? The Federal government is basically a 100% online system. Now, knowing some of the "dredges" of society that we do, how secure do you think your information would be, if you're the average library computer user? Honestly, there's nothing I would EVER look up on a library computer that ever needed any login information, or any of my personal data (so, like wikipedia, or youtube )
I also realize that, even if we're talking within this theoretical vacuum, IRL, there are people who, despite other obligations, put their money where it doesn't belong. For what I'm talking about here: one of the soldiers in my last unit was constantly "broke" (we'd tell him to buy new ACUs, or even a new PT belt, or ANYTHING), we found out, after the process of his divorce, that he was a month away from eviction for non-payment of rent; instead of paying rent, he thought it was a good idea to buy the newest Call of Duty or Assassin's Creed game (seriously, no gak... his money went almost exclusively to smokes and video games). I never met them, but I definitely know of other "infamous" soldiers who made the same choice, but you could swap rent for baby clothes/diapers.
Smacks wrote: What I don't understand is why people who are proponents of free market capitalism -- a system that, by its very nature, pushes most people to the bottom of a hierarchical income structure -- always seem to be the same people who are calling those at the bottom 'lazy freeloaders' (or some variation) and arguing that they deserve all they get (which is usually nothing).
It is based on a false belief in a mystical meritocracy that doesn't really exist as well as the self delusion that they will be the one at the top of the hierarchy or soon will be, even if they aren't now. It is building castles out of clouds in the hope that they become real. It is nice when one does well but it is a poor way to make a system of governance.
Smacks wrote: a system that, by its very nature, pushes most people to the bottom of a hierarchical income structure
That is not true. Communism, by virtue of being the only system in modern times that allowed millions of its citizens to actually die of starvation in an otherwise functioning nation state, is the system that pushes most people to the bottom.
It is based on a false belief in a mystical meritocracy that doesn't really exist as well as the self delusion that they will be the one at the top of the hierarchy or soon will be, even if they aren't now. It is building castles out of clouds in the hope that they become real. It is nice when one does well but it is a poor way to make a system of governance.
Actually, capitalist social democracy is the system of governance that has the highest rate of upward social mobility so I don't know where you got that "false belief in a mystical meritocracy" part from.
Kids probably don't even know that the "save" icon used to be an actual physical thing.
There have actually been several instances of public discussion within tech discussion boards that I follow of that exact thing and whether it's time to transition the floppy icon to something else.
I thought the post meant the save icon originally was a button on the machine. I was searching my memory for every having seen one -- been computing since the mid-70s -- and getting no where.
Glad to hear it meant the save icon looks like a floppy disc.
In my view there are far too many icons now. They made sense when menu localisation was a major PITA and there was less screen space for text menus, and a lot fewer icons. Nowadays, it is harder to learn all the new icons than just read words. (Letters after all are just a kind of icon that we have all already learnt thoroughly, so why not use them?)
Redbeard wrote: Minimum wage was enacted in the thirties, with the following justification:
"In my Inaugural I laid down the simple proposition that nobody is going to starve in this country. It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living." - FDR
That minimum wage fails to keep pace with inflation and regularly fails to meet its mandate is simply evidence of the weakness of our politicians in failing to support the citizens, rather than the business interests.
The same arguments are raised every time the minimum wage's effective rate falls below the living level. These are the same arguments raised in opposition to the initial establishment of the minimum wage, the same arguments that have been proven false time and again. Those who keep voicing these arguments not only fail to recognize history, but do so largely against their own interest. In a capitalist society, a high minimum wage ensures that customers exist for products.
We have a minimum wage and we still saw domestic manufacturing shrink dramatically over the last several decades. Raising the minimum wage won't bring those jobs back and it actively incentivizes more outsourcing and automation by making both alternatives cheaper. There is nothing the state can do to make it worthwhile for Apple to manufacture iphones in the US. Technology has made the labor market global and there's nothing the state can do to change that either. Car companies already moved their factories from Michigan to Alabama and then to Mexico, they won't move them back of we make labor more expensive. NAFTA got passed what, 20 years ago? Plus all the ensuing trade agreements since then, that we can't just extricate ourselves from overnight even if Congress wanted to do it. If you make McDonald's pay cashiers more money you just make it more cost effective for them to hire less people, not have cashiers and use automated touch screen point of sale systems, just like Sheetz already does. If you make retailers pay too much more for minimum wage employers they'll just cut staff and have more self check out registers just like WalMart, Home Depot, etc. already use. The state can't control market conditions and only has a limited amount of influence on them. The govt has been overtly steering the US economy to a low prices, low wages, consumer economy for decades. Adam Smith saw this coming 200+ years ago. If Congress doubled the federal minimum wage tomorrow it would only exacerbate the very conditions you want it to ameliorate.
PhantomViper wrote: Actually, capitalist social democracy is the system of governance that has the highest rate of upward social mobility so I don't know where you got that "false belief in a mystical meritocracy" part from.
Upward mobility in the US has been problematic for some time, and the question was why people would vote against their own interests, not "what is the best form of government overall". It is a similar reason to why people in the US constantly bitch about government officials, give them a horrible overall rating, but then keep sending the same people there over and over. I'm not sure how you got from "why do people vote against their own economic interests" to the non-existent "why is capitalist social democracy terrible" and is a bit of its own mystery. Also, in the US you have to go easy on the 'social' part, as that is often conflated with Communism.
Smacks wrote: a system that, by its very nature, pushes most people to the bottom of a hierarchical income structure
That is not true. Communism, by virtue of being...
It is true, and this isn't a discussion about the merits of capitalism versus communism.
Here is a graph of wealth distribution in America:
As you can see, 60% of the population are in the bottom 5% in terms of wealth. So clearly most people (60%) have been pushed to the bottom (5%). It is completely true. You are wrong.
sure, capitalism is doing a horrible job of wealth distribution...
but its still doing a better job then every other economic system has...
what "people would like the distribution of wealth" to be has no merit to what it is or should be,
in general the wealthy are wealthy because they made good decisions, even if they inherited their wealth, its extremely easy to make bad choices and lose it all.
conversely, people who are not wealthy, generally dont make the same choices as wealthy people do. We see this idea furthered when we notice that 70% of lotto winners go broke in a few years.
habits define your wealth much more then people like to admit.
easysauce wrote: sure, capitalism is doing a horrible job of wealth distribution...
but its still doing a better job then every other economic system has...
what "people would like the distribution of wealth" to be has no merit to what it is or should be,
in general the wealthy are wealthy because they made good decisions, even if they inherited their wealth, its extremely easy to make bad choices and lose it all.
conversely, people who are not wealthy, generally dont make the same choices as wealthy people do. We see this idea furthered when we notice that 70% of lotto winners go broke in a few years.
habits define your wealth much more then people like to admit.
The richest people I know spend most of their time working.
My boss comes in with a huge box of paper work, leaves with a huge box of paper work. Spends 7 days a week at work, only has breaks to sleep. Of course he has done some great stuff like travel to the Atlantic, china etc you name it. But he works harder and more than the normal person. His son barely knew him growing up etc. After dealing with rich people, many are the same. Its not the education someone has, not the job and not always their parents, its a certain drive or ethic that pushes them to success.
There is a huge difference between the extremely wealthy and everyone else. Until people witness how they live their lives the grass seems greener on the other side. I know if being rich means Im a slave to my job I would rather just be getting by. Even though I grew up wanting to be rich I know longer want to. Its something that doesnt end. In order to stay rich, you need to keep getting rich. Even after retirement these guys are still making money where they can.
The richest people probably work harder and more than the average person ever will and they are rewarded as such and this passes down to their children too. They work hard and their children share that benefit. My friends mother spent her life on the benefit drinking etc. Now my friend had a really hard time getting anywhere with no financial help and no contacts from her mom. I on the other hand was lucky my dad worked hard and as he worked met people that got me jobs etc all because of his work. How hard your parents work and so on defines the opportunities you get growing up.
In short, most rich people have worked hard through generations to get rich/stay rich.
But at the end of the day, people should still have enough to get by. Hence why the minimum wage is important.
Kilkrazy wrote: If the wealthy feed and cloth the rest of us why is a minimum wage needed? Why have so many good jobs been outsourced to China, Mexico and India?
Well other countries need feeding too...
But yea im not sure. I guess that kinda contradicts that point.
Kilkrazy wrote: If the wealthy feed and cloth the rest of us why is a minimum wage needed? Why have so many good jobs been outsourced to China, Mexico and India?
the jobs were outsourced because why would someone pay someone in America 10$ an hour when they can pay someone 3$ an hour somewhere else... keep raising min wage and keep seeing jobs fly over seas.
rich people are becoming the bogey man, its a lot easier to blame them then to accept personal responsibility for your own financial state.
ironically, accepting personal responsibility for ones own finances is one of the traits of successful people.
Kilkrazy wrote: If the wealthy feed and cloth the rest of us why is a minimum wage needed? Why have so many good jobs been outsourced to China, Mexico and India?
They are busy feeding and clothing them, at substantially reduced rates of labor cost.
The rich are justified as long as they actually contribute to the welfare of everyone else.
Recent history has seen the rich being rewarded more and more, which should lead to everyone else improving their living standards and so on.
It hasn't happened.
I agree, recent history has seen laws favor the rich, corporate tax rates are abominably low, and corporations should not have more rights then people. Smaller business gets screwed too.
the thing is though, these policies are mostly in place due to apathy and lack of understanding of the financial sectors by the common person, apathy in the late 20th century led to lots of stuff we have now that is just... horrible.
we also have a huge corruption problem, one that the media completely ignores, it doesnt take a sherlock holmes to connect the dots and see connections between "whos running the countries" and who is benefiting the most from the rules those countries make.
Its only now that people are getting info tainment that spells it out for them how they are being screwed that people are starting to wake up.
Our education system should be able to pump out people who have at least one work ready *skill or trade* that warrants above minimum wage jobs, who also understand how to invest properly for the future...
as it is, our education system fails everyone (rich included) because people come out of it with very little practical skills.
I have a hard time convincing people to say, put 5 grand a year into a tax free savings account, because they often say "i dont have 5 grand" even though they likely paid 5 grand in taxes, and would get that back(+ interest tax free), for putting it into the account.
easysauce wrote: in general the wealthy are wealthy because they made good decisions.
I think that is likely a myth. They appear to have made good decisions in retrospect, but no one can see the future, or know all the angles. In the end they made some good decisions and had a lot of luck, being in the right place at the right time etc... But for every success story, there are probably a thousand people who gambled and lost, and then the bank defaulted on their house. But you don't hear about those guys.
easysauce wrote: its a lot easier to blame them then to accept personal responsibility for your own financial state.
And it's a lot easier to take "responsibility" for you own financial state, and feth everyone else, than it is to take responsibility for the well being of society as a whole.
Ultimately wealth is relative. For one person to be rich, another person must be poor. There is no way around it. So why kick people while they are down?
easysauce wrote: in general the wealthy are wealthy because they made good decisions.
I think that is likely a myth. They appear to have made good decisions in retrospect, but no one can see the future, or know all the angles. In the end they made some good decisions and had a lot of luck, being in the right place at the right time etc... But for every success story, there are probably a thousand people who gambled and lost, and then the bank defaulted on their house. But you don't hear about those guys.
easysauce wrote: its a lot easier to blame them then to accept personal responsibility for your own financial state.
And it's a lot easier to take "responsibility" for you own financial state, and feth everyone else, than it is to take responsibility for the well being of society as a whole.
Ultimately wealth is relative. For one person to be rich, another person must be poor. There is no way around it. So why kick people while they are down?
thats not true at all.... Its a myth that all rich people are lucky, otherwise we wouldnt see 70% of lotto winners go broke in a few years.
true wealth comes out of win win scenarios... its not true that for rich to exist that poor must also exist, two people can both be given two identical farms, and one can run it into the ground, while the other runs it well and makes money. The good farmer didnt make the bad farmer poor.
in general terms,
wealthy people put their bodies and money to work, and take risks, take advantage of every tax/investment law they can and yes some are lucky, but most succeed because they worked hard to mitigate their risk. They see themselves as the only one to blame if they fail.
conversely, lots of non wealthy people, never invest, never take risks, dont even know about tax breaks they could get, rarely deprive themselves now for a payoff later, and wonder why they never get wealthy... and will generally blame someone else for why they are poor.
the real "myth" is that personal actions are less important to making wealth then luck, its a commonly accepted myth, especially amongst those who do not do what rich people do, but a myth nonetheless.
Once you accumulate a certain level of wealth you have to work very hard or be extremely unlucky to lose it. The money essentially keeps making itself. A well managed trust fund will allow future generations to live a life of leisure without ever diminishing the value of the original fund.
The rich are justified as long as they actually contribute to the welfare of everyone else.
Uhm...what? That's highly irrational. Why would anyone be obligated to just give his money away to others just...because they're there? How does that make any sense? Rich people are justified because they...are people. Jealousy by others comes for free. I, for example, earn a lot of money. And I darn well deserve it because I hold responsibility not only for my own family, but for everyone working for us. If I screw up, tons of people might lose their jobs. If I do well, tons of people will profit from my good decisions.
Rich people already pay a ridiculous amount of taxes and benefit far more to the state's welfare than a vast amount of lower class citizens. You can easily maintain a state with 50% of its overall population, but have fun trying to maintain it with 50% of its top salaries / taxes.
And yes, the "Rich people are rich because of luck" attitude has been debunked so many times before that it's not even funny anymore.
I seem to remember a news story a few years ago which stated the top 50 billionaires in the UK paid an effective tax rate of well under 1%. Not forgetting all those companies who manage to not only pay no tax while making huge piles of cash, but also then get money from the government in subsidies too... BHS springs to mind...
easysauce wrote: thats not true at all.... Its a myth that all rich people are lucky, otherwise we wouldnt see 70% of lotto winners go broke in a few years.
And how many entrepreneurs and business men go broke? Companies go belly up all the time. Saying it is all skill and no luck is just wishful thinking.
true wealth comes out of win win scenarios...
Right, and to find yourself in win/win scenario and have the resources and skills to exploit it is luck. Who wouldn't win if the scenario is win /win? That's practically the definition of luck.
its not true that for rich to exist that poor must also exist.
Yes it is. You can only be rich in comparison to someone else. If you have 10 million and you live in a country where everyone else has 10 billion, then you are poor, and 10 million won't be worth anything. Wealth is entirely relative.
SilverMK2 wrote: I seem to remember a news story a few years ago which stated the top 50 billionaires in the UK paid an effective tax rate of well under 1%. Not forgetting all those companies who manage to not only pay no tax while making huge piles of cash, but also then get money from the government in subsidies too... BHS springs to mind...
It's no secret that everyone with a good income exploits the system. I mean, if you are about to get robbed of 50% of your income, you'd defend yourself. Robbing people is bad.
Yes it is. You can only be rich in comparison to someone else. If you have 10 million and you live in a country where everyone else has 10 billion, then you are poor, and 10 million won't be worth anything. Wealth is entirely relative.
You missed that Globalization thingy a few years ago.
SilverMK2 wrote: I seem to remember a news story a few years ago which stated the top 50 billionaires in the UK paid an effective tax rate of well under 1%. Not forgetting all those companies who manage to not only pay no tax while making huge piles of cash, but also then get money from the government in subsidies too... BHS springs to mind...
I'd like to remind you for all your whinging, these people are the job creators. You should thank them that you have any money at all. In fact since they're the ones paying you, your money is just their money that they decided to give you. If you weren't so lazy maybe you'd have your own money but in the meantime don't bemoan those giving you charity.
Secondly, with as much money as they have you don't think they couldn't build a giant meat grinder that could chop a person up into tiny little bits. Look at as all though, not one of us is being shoved into a giant grinder. The kindness of the billionaires is the only thing stopping that! How can you be so ungrateful, for staying whole and unprocessed as you are? I swear the way you complain it's almost like you'd rather have us turned into human slurry.
easysauce wrote: thats not true at all.... Its a myth that all rich people are lucky, otherwise we wouldnt see 70% of lotto winners go broke in a few years.
And how many entrepreneurs and business men go broke? Companies go belly up all the time. Saying it is all skill and no luck is just wishful thinking.
true wealth comes out of win win scenarios...
Right, and to find yourself in win/win scenario and have the resources and skills to exploit it is luck. Who wouldn't win if the scenario is win /win? That's practically the definition of luck.
its not true that for rich to exist that poor must also exist.
Yes it is. You can only be rich in comparison to someone else. If you have 10 million and you live in a country where everyone else has 10 billion, then you are poor, and 10 million won't be worth anything. Wealth is entirely relative.
not true...
You are rich if your income exceeds your outcome, if everyone in a country has 10 milion, but pays 11 million to stay alive, they are all poor, if they all have one dollar, but only need a penny, they are rich.
Having skills is not luck... using skills to acquire resources, invest, and mitigate risk is not luck... luck is random.
You are calling out people who take risks with capital they saved, mitigate those risks and come out ahead, as "lucky" despite them requiring hard work and skills.
conversely, a person who does nothing with their resources, doesnt invest them, and has no risk to mitigate, is not unlucky at all... they did nothing, and got nothing, yet are surprised by the results.
its like looking at a scientist, do you claim scientists are just lucky when they discover stuff? or do you copy their methods, recreate them, and get the same results?
when you end up not being as skillful with the bunsen burner, and burning down your own lab, do you blame that on luck or lack of skill?
Prestor Jon wrote:
We have a minimum wage and we still saw domestic manufacturing shrink dramatically over the last several decades. Raising the minimum wage won't bring those jobs back and it actively incentivizes more outsourcing and automation by making both alternatives cheaper.
This is true, I'm with you here.
There is nothing the state can do to make it worthwhile for Apple to manufacture iphones in the US.
Really? Have you read the constitution lately? The Congress may enact tariffs. We enacted tariffs as recently as the eighties (maybe more recently, but I know about this one off the top of my head). Under Reagan, Harley-Davidson asked for a protective tariff in order to rebuild the domestic heavy-weight motorcycle industry in this country. Congress passed a tariff, Harley stayed in the US, rebuilt their business, and actually asked the government to take down the tariff early as they met their goals ahead of schedule.
Anyone who believes that our government cannot address outsourcing has not studied history. The issue isn't that we cannot, it is that our politicians are bought and paid for by the same companies who wish to outsource jobs. We offer tax incentives to countries that outsource jobs. You know what the state could do to make it worthwhile to manufacture in the US again? Offer tax incentives to do so, and punitive taxes for outsourcing. Don't tell me there's nothing we can do.
What's more, one of the big reasons it is cheaper to manufacture overseas, rather than here, is that we only enforce environmental and workplace safety regulations here. If we refused to allow companies to avoid these regulations by working in other companies, and required that all products sold in the US were manufactured in facilities that complied with US environmental and safety laws, it would cease to be cheaper to work overseas. The global labor market exists as it currently does because the people running the system profit from it this way. Not because it is inherently required to be this way.
And it's not just outsourcing, it's also automation. You say McDonalds would hire fewer people by using automated tellers (or whatever). That's fine - but there are different ways to address this issue than paying your employees starvation-level wages and claiming it's the only alternative.
Automation pretty much guarantees that there will be less demand for labour as time passes. And between breeding and immigration, there will be more people to do those fewer jobs. If you don't change the system, all this does is concentrate more wealth in the hands of those who own capital, and divide less wealth among an ever-increasing number of people. That's not a society I want to live in.
Instead, you can see what Europe is doing. Rather than give all the rewards of increase productivity to just a few, workers are paid more, and work fewer hours. Going from a standardized 5 day work-week to a 4 day work-week (with no change in annual salary) divides the benefit of increased productivity across the entire workforce. It immediately increases demand for labor by 20%.
Instead, the US has the fewest vacation days of all industrialized nations. We work people well over 40-hours/week, and insist that having an uber-wealthy upper class is admirable because those few people must have really earned it, and besides, I want to be one of them one day.
If Congress doubled the federal minimum wage tomorrow it would only exacerbate the very conditions you want it to ameliorate.
Ludicrous. Every time minimum wage has increased, we've seen increases in overall prosperity. Most recently, Seattle passed a $15/hour minimum wage. Did the city crumble? Did businesses flee, or inflict massive price hikes on their customers? No. Instead, businesses prospered as, remarkably, the customer base in the city suddenly had money to spend.
true wealth comes out of win win scenarios... its not true that for rich to exist that poor must also exist, two people can both be given two identical farms, and one can run it into the ground, while the other runs it well and makes money. The good farmer didnt make the bad farmer poor.
There is no such thing as "true wealth". There are many definitions of wealth but they all have validity in certain instances, and they can all just as easily be derived from win-win scenarios as win-lose scenarios. In fact it is arguably easier to develop one's wealth by exploitative means than by fair ones; hence the prevalence of coal towns and plantations (among other things) back in the day.
As to your farm comment: No, the good farmer did not make the bad farmer poor but, in a closed system, there will always be a finite amount of wealth* which must be divided between a given number of people (natural and artificial). This means that, even absent intent to screw a competitor over, the accumulation of wealth by one party limits the accumulation of wealth by all others.
You are rich if your income exceeds your outcome, if everyone in a country has 10 milion, but pays 11 million to stay alive, they are all poor, if they all have one dollar, but only need a penny, they are rich.
Am I rich if I earn 1 penny more than what I need to survive? At least assuming I only need 1 dollar?
Dogma
Its almost like you want me to look like im stupid enough to think a dollar+ a penny makes you rich in the literal sense, but in reply to a direct statement that "if everyone had a billion dollars no one is rich" what I said makes sense when trying to convey the idea of earning more then you spend being a cornerstone of whats considered "rich", but hey, why have context right?
The problem is, in a completely free market, if everyone has a billion dollars, then no one will be willing to work for $5 an hour anymore. So wages must go up, costs must then go up, and prices must go up. Eventually the system will resettle with the poorest least rich person being poor again.
Smacks wrote: The problem is, in a completely free market, if everyone has a billion dollars, then no one will be willing to work for $5 an hour anymore. So wages must go up, costs must then go up, and prices must go up. Eventually the system will resettle with the poorest least rich person being poor again.
I certainly agree that if everyone had a billion that 5$/hr is meaningless, but your scenario seemed to be a "if everyone won the lotto overnight" kind of thing to me, I think we are on the same general page, as your above statement makes sense.
You are correct though, as the wages of everyone goes up, prices also tend to rise. Hence why raising min wage isnt always the best thing to do, its often just a band aid. Finding ways to bring back good paying jobs, reduce the price hikes consumers keep seeing in the basic essentials, tend to work much longer term then just raising min wage over and over and repeating the cycle you mention above.
Id be curious to what you think of this
Its one of the more creative solutions I think, of course its swiss, not 100% sure it would work everywhere of course, but it is akin to this:
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-25415501
the jist of it being:
"Now two more votes are on the way, the first on the introduction of a minimum wage, and the second, and most controversial, on a guaranteed basic income for all legal residents, whether they work or not.
A universal basic income sounds very radical, but it is not a new idea - Thomas More proposed it in his work Utopia in the 16th Century.
On the left, universal basic income is thought to be fairer, while on the right it is seen as the policy that would make welfare payments obsolete.
There will be no incentive for young people to learn a job or study”
it simplifies the whole welfare system into one easy payment, making it simpler and cheaper, as long as the stipend is needs only, people will still get better skills to provide for their many wants
its also cheaper to pay a living needs level stipend then it is to deal with the tertiary effects of that person being homeless
I think it's a fascinating idea. I suppose the main argument against it would be that no one will be motivated to do anything. Which reminds me of a little info video I watched where the guy talks about what really motivates people:
The video implies that people who aren't worried about their basic survival, are actually much more motivated and creative. Even more so than people who are being highly paid. It's a very interesting watch.
I say abolish the minimum wage. That probably won't happen in my lifetime so I say don't raise it. Minimum wage jobs are not careers they are jumping off points for people with little or no work experience to get some. Once they have some they can and should move on to better jobs that require more training or education. Learn a skill. Flipping burgers is not a skill that is worth $15/hr.
Every time they raise the minimum wage it effectively gives everyone who has worked hard to better themselves and be worth more then the minimum wage a pay cut. Their skills/education are devalued every time minimum wage goes up.
Also every time you raise minimum wage costs will go up for everything that requires minimum wage employees.
slk28850 wrote: I say abolish the minimum wage. That probably won't happen in my lifetime so I say don't raise it. Minimum wage jobs are not careers they are jumping off points for people with little or no work experience to get some. Once they have some they can and should move on to better jobs that require more training or education. Learn a skill. Flipping burgers is not a skill that is worth $15/hr.
If I'm only getting paid minimum wage for flipping burgers, how do I get other skills. Hint: It's not from flipping burgers
Every time they raise the minimum wage it effectively gives everyone who has worked hard to better themselves and be worth more then the minimum wage a pay cut. Their skills/education are devalued every time minimum wage goes up.
So? You're telling everyone to "Learn a skill" surely flooding the market with people that know the exact same skills would you know, devalue their skills just as much or even more, so why not make sure everyone lives as comfortably as possible and happier. And you know what, happy, comfortable workers, are hard and compentant workers
Also every time you raise minimum wage costs will go up for everything that requires minimum wage employees.
Sure, but seeing as wage is not 100% the cost of making anything at the minimum wage level, the increase in free wealth (that is money that can be spent on things) is greater relative to the cost of the final product (if it increases at all).
Consider the following:
If someone gets an extra $2 an hour and they make 100 burgers in that hour, then the cost of making all 100 burgers increases by $2 which is the same as 2 cents per burger, if the burger costs $5, then if the full price increase is passed onto consumers (which they won't, because unrounded prices are ugly apparently) so the burger now costs $5.02 that is a whopping price increase of 0.4%
Now if the employee went from $13 dollars/hour to $15 dollars/hour, then their wealth (and thus their ability to contribute to society) is increased by 15.38%. I fail to see how me paying another 2 cents for my burger is not worth someone getting an extra 15.38% to spend on the essentials.
Chongara wrote: I'd like to remind you for all your whinging, these people are the job creators. You should thank them that you have any money at all. In fact since they're the ones paying you, your money is just their money that they decided to give you. If you weren't so lazy maybe you'd have your own money but in the meantime don't bemoan those giving you charity.
Actually, since I work for a government funded body, and they pay effectively no tax, they didn't give me all my money or create my job
PhantomViper wrote: Actually, capitalist social democracy is the system of governance that has the highest rate of upward social mobility so I don't know where you got that "false belief in a mystical meritocracy" part from.
Upward mobility in the US has been problematic for some time, and the question was why people would vote against their own interests, not "what is the best form of government overall". It is a similar reason to why people in the US constantly bitch about government officials, give them a horrible overall rating, but then keep sending the same people there over and over. I'm not sure how you got from "why do people vote against their own economic interests" to the non-existent "why is capitalist social democracy terrible" and is a bit of its own mystery. Also, in the US you have to go easy on the 'social' part, as that is often conflated with Communism.
It's not just people not voting in their own best interests it's a govt that doesn't act in the people's best interests. We've created a system of crony capitalism that socializes risks and privatizes gains as the govt allows business to directly impact the very legislation that regulates them. Our republic is designed for govt to move slowly but over the centuries the govt has grown larger and more intrusive into areas it has no place which then makes the private sector slower moving. Big Business pushes Congress to pass legislation that regulates away competition and helps maintain the status quo. However, time marches on, technology continues to progress, innovation happens but govt interferes and tries to steer it. When the inevitable conflict between how the economy should be managed vs how it is actually being managed occurs the people that get hurt are the public, especially the ones in lower income brackets.
Recently (maybe not that recently) there was a study that consisted of evaluating the effectiveness of awarding monetary assistance directly to poor people in the third world (subSaharan Africa was the are in the study IIRC) and it was found to be very effective. In countries where the govt's reach is small individuals have the freedom to turn a sudden infusion of say, $5k of capital directly into hiring employees, purchasing supplies and/or equipment, property etc. to get their business up and running quickly. The classic method of teaching people to fish rather than giving them fish.
Contrast that with the high cost of starting your own business in the US. How many thousands of dollars or tens of thousands of dollars do you need to pay for all the permitting and licensing fees? The inspections, the required amount of insurance, the taxes, etc. all the red tape. How do average citizens get that kind of money saved up? Even people earning the national median of $45-50K (a comfortable wage in most of the US) are going to struggle to save up a lot of money. Increasing the difficulty of starting a business hurts job growth because small businesses are primary source of employment. Small businesses outnumber big businesses and small business have more room to grow as opposed to big businesses that have a limited in their growth potential by their already large size. People taking the opportunity to start their own businesses create more opportunity as they need to hire employees and they can all grow together creating more opportunities for themselves and others.
The oligarchs feel free, and even entitled, to choose the direction of society in the name of a greater good, but somehow their policies seem mostly to make the oligarchs richer and more powerful. Meanwhile, once-prosperous middle-class communities, revolving around manufacturing industries that have now moved overseas, either sink into poverty or become gentrified homes for the lower-upper class. The middle class itself, meanwhile, is increasingly, in Kotkin's words, "proletarianized," with security vanishing and jobs moving downscale.
The oligarchs are assisted in their control by what Kotkin calls the "clerisy" class — an amalgam of academics, media and government employees who play the role that medieval clergy once played in legitimizing the powerful, and in implementing their policies while quelling resistance from the masses. The clerisy isn't as rich as the oligarchs, but it does pretty well for itself and is compensated in part by status, its positions allowing even its lower-paid members to feel superior to the hoi polloi.
Because it doesn't have to work in competitive industries, the clerisy favors regulations, land-use rules and environmental restrictions that make things worse for businesses — especially the small "yeoman" businesses that traditionally sustained much of the middle class — thus further hollowing out the middle of the income distribution. But the lower classes, sustained by government handouts and by rhetoric from the clerisy, provide enough votes to keep the machine running, at least for a while.
And as Radley Balko notes in the Washington Post, a thicket of petty regulation helps to keep the poor, poor. Traffic fines, fines for not using a city-approved garbage service, even parking tickets all provide revenue for municipal machines that support jobs for the clerisy — social workers, police, etc. — even as they make it harder for poor people to keep their heads above water, or find the kind of work that would let them rise above poverty.
It’s a change that’s been coming for 20 years. From World War II to the 1980s, according to data from the McKinsey Global Institute, it took roughly six months after GDP rebounded from a recession for employment to recovery fully. But in the 1990–91 recession and recovery, it took 15 months, and in 2001 it took 39 months. This time around, it’s taken 41 months–more than three years–to replace the jobs lost in the Great Recession. And while the quantity has come back, the quality hasn’t. The job market, as everyone knows, is extremely bifurcated: there are jobs for Ph.D.s and burger flippers but not enough in between. That’s a problem in an economy that’s made up chiefly of consumer spending. When the majority of people don’t have more money, they can’t spend more, and companies can’t create more jobs higher up the food chain. This backstory is laid out in an interim Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report cautioning that poor job creation and flat wages are “holding back a stronger recovery in consumer spending.” If this trend is left unchecked, we are looking at a generation that will be permanently less well off than their parents.
And we’re just getting started: consider the outcry in certain cities over companies like Zillow, Uber and Airbnb, which are fostering “creative destruction” in new sectors like real estate, transportation and hotels. McKinsey estimates that new technologies will put up to 140 million service jobs at risk in the next decade. Critics of this estimate say we’re underestimating the opportunities that will come with everyone having a smartphone. All I can say is, I hope so. What’s clear is that development isn’t yet reflected in stronger consumption or official economic statistics.
The rich are justified as long as they actually contribute to the welfare of everyone else.
Recent history has seen the rich being rewarded more and more, which should lead to everyone else improving their living standards and so on.
It hasn't happened.
I am certainly not looking forward to the future, I think by time I am old it will look like some horrid hive city/fist of the north star thing.
I have zero hope for the future nor any faith it will turn out well. Even if I could go to school is there a real point (wasting all that money and being in so much debt to get the same job I'd end up with if I hadn't wasted those years?)
I mean if education was free here then sure, just the experience alone I'd enjoy, but it's far from it and far from useful.
Personally I hope I die before I have to whip out the giant shoulder pads, but then chances are I'll probably live to see it and live long enough to need them.
Prestor Jon wrote:
We have a minimum wage and we still saw domestic manufacturing shrink dramatically over the last several decades. Raising the minimum wage won't bring those jobs back and it actively incentivizes more outsourcing and automation by making both alternatives cheaper.
This is true, I'm with you here.
There is nothing the state can do to make it worthwhile for Apple to manufacture iphones in the US.
Really? Have you read the constitution lately? The Congress may enact tariffs. We enacted tariffs as recently as the eighties (maybe more recently, but I know about this one off the top of my head). Under Reagan, Harley-Davidson asked for a protective tariff in order to rebuild the domestic heavy-weight motorcycle industry in this country. Congress passed a tariff, Harley stayed in the US, rebuilt their business, and actually asked the government to take down the tariff early as they met their goals ahead of schedule.
Anyone who believes that our government cannot address outsourcing has not studied history. The issue isn't that we cannot, it is that our politicians are bought and paid for by the same companies who wish to outsource jobs. We offer tax incentives to countries that outsource jobs. You know what the state could do to make it worthwhile to manufacture in the US again? Offer tax incentives to do so, and punitive taxes for outsourcing. Don't tell me there's nothing we can do.
What's more, one of the big reasons it is cheaper to manufacture overseas, rather than here, is that we only enforce environmental and workplace safety regulations here. If we refused to allow companies to avoid these regulations by working in other companies, and required that all products sold in the US were manufactured in facilities that complied with US environmental and safety laws, it would cease to be cheaper to work overseas. The global labor market exists as it currently does because the people running the system profit from it this way. Not because it is inherently required to be this way.
And it's not just outsourcing, it's also automation. You say McDonalds would hire fewer people by using automated tellers (or whatever). That's fine - but there are different ways to address this issue than paying your employees starvation-level wages and claiming it's the only alternative.
Automation pretty much guarantees that there will be less demand for labour as time passes. And between breeding and immigration, there will be more people to do those fewer jobs. If you don't change the system, all this does is concentrate more wealth in the hands of those who own capital, and divide less wealth among an ever-increasing number of people. That's not a society I want to live in.
Instead, you can see what Europe is doing. Rather than give all the rewards of increase productivity to just a few, workers are paid more, and work fewer hours. Going from a standardized 5 day work-week to a 4 day work-week (with no change in annual salary) divides the benefit of increased productivity across the entire workforce. It immediately increases demand for labor by 20%.
Instead, the US has the fewest vacation days of all industrialized nations. We work people well over 40-hours/week, and insist that having an uber-wealthy upper class is admirable because those few people must have really earned it, and besides, I want to be one of them one day.
If Congress doubled the federal minimum wage tomorrow it would only exacerbate the very conditions you want it to ameliorate.
Ludicrous. Every time minimum wage has increased, we've seen increases in overall prosperity. Most recently, Seattle passed a $15/hour minimum wage. Did the city crumble? Did businesses flee, or inflict massive price hikes on their customers? No. Instead, businesses prospered as, remarkably, the customer base in the city suddenly had money to spend.
What's this... Someone talking sense in a house of madness? This isn't what the internet was made for damn it.
Seems fairly relevant to the discussion, as I've seen other articles recently expressing much the same sentiment:
For those who are work blocked, or don't wish to read it, some economists or political "activist" types did a study of a Wisconsin "Super Center" and determined that a single walmart store cost the Wisconsin tax payers' around 1 million dollars in welfare benefits.
Seems fairly relevant to the discussion, as I've seen other articles recently expressing much the same sentiment:
For those who are work blocked, or don't wish to read it, some economists or political "activist" types did a study of a Wisconsin "Super Center" and determined that a single walmart store cost the Wisconsin tax payers' around 1 million dollars in welfare benefits.
thats not exactly a fact however,
while it may be true that walmarts employees collect welfare benefits in higher proportions then say, people who work at professional or skilled trades level jobs, to presume that they collect these benefits as a direct result of walmart is a bit of a stretch.
if walmart vanished tommorow, would these people somehow not be on welfare?
would that town be better off with those people earning an income(and gaining all the taxes from that income, as well as the walmart itself) and welfare benefits, or with just those people getting welfare benefits?
would that town be better off with those people earning an income(and gaining all the taxes from that income, as well as the walmart itself) and welfare benefits, or with just those people getting welfare benefits?
IMO, if a person is working full time, they shouldn't need any public assistance in the first place. There were other articles that I just read before linking that one, where they were talking about McDonald's being just as bad, and in "fact" McD's having an employee resource that advocated FULL TIME employees go onto public assistance.
I personally am of the opinion that, as much as a company's sole mission in life is to make money, it's sole mission SHOULD be to make money after taking care of it's employees. And yeah, I think that any city/town would be better off if everyone were making enough money that they're not on Welfare or other programs like it. It means they're making enough money and paying taxes on that money. That money that is no longer going to so many people in Welfare can go into important places, like the school system.
One of my mates got a job in Walmart a few months ago, he's been promoted twice already and seems to be making a good living off it.
This is in Canada though.
He's a trained aircraft avionics specialist, so could get other work fairly easily if he wanted to.
Best job he's had for years apparently.
Go figure....
Grey Templar wrote: I think its more a case of Walmart hires a lot of people who live on welfare and not that working at Walmart turns you into a recipient of welfare.
Does it really matter which it is? To be on welfare you need to make under a certain amount. Walmart doesn't pay enough for people working there even at full time hours to live off welfare.
if walmart vanished tommorow, would these people somehow not be on welfare?
That's not even the wrong question, it's an utterly irrelevant question. No one is saying "get rid of walmart." We're saying "wow someone is working full time and still needs welfare. Something is wrong with this picture."
would that town be better off with those people earning an income(and gaining all the taxes from that income, as well as the walmart itself) and welfare benefits, or with just those people getting welfare benefits?
Or would it be better off if walmart paid people enough they didn't need welfare? You're creating a false dichotomy.
Grey Templar wrote: I think its more a case of Walmart hires a lot of people who live on welfare and not that working at Walmart turns you into a recipient of welfare.
Does it really matter which it is? To be on welfare you need to make under a certain amount. Walmart doesn't pay enough for people working there even at full time hours to live off welfare.
if walmart vanished tommorow, would these people somehow not be on welfare?
That's not even the wrong question, it's an utterly irrelevant question. No one is saying "get rid of walmart." We're saying "wow someone is working full time and still needs welfare. Something is wrong with this picture."
Why?
Why should working full time always mean you don't need welfare? And by what measurement would we determine that?
Would it be what a single person needs to not be on welfare? Married? With kids? How many? What location in the US would you determine what they need with?
Why should working full time always mean you don't need welfare?
Don't know that it does. I do know you can actually address what is being said, rather than something that is not. There really is such a thing as a stupid question.
easysauce wrote:
would that town be better off with those people earning an income(and gaining all the taxes from that income, as well as the walmart itself) and welfare benefits, or with just those people getting welfare benefits?
Or would it be better off if walmart paid people enough they didn't need welfare? You're creating a false dichotomy.
No, I am really not, the only false choice is the one you made, where the choice of "just pay them more" exists in a vacuum unrelated to economic realities. That these people were already on welfare before working at walmart, and/or would be with or without it, is a very real and likely possibility.
walmart, and mcd's, do not pay minimum wage around here.
we have a min wage, and they pay more, there is no magical canadian law forcing these companies to pay more here.
So why do they?
I mean if they are big bad evil companies who exploit their workers and welfare systems, why do they bother to pay more then min wage in some areas?
Could it be that there are actual economic reasons that translate into how much people are paid for unskilled work, with supply of unskilled labour being just one of those factors?
easysauce wrote:
would that town be better off with those people earning an income(and gaining all the taxes from that income, as well as the walmart itself) and welfare benefits, or with just those people getting welfare benefits?
Or would it be better off if walmart paid people enough they didn't need welfare? You're creating a false dichotomy.
No, I am really not, the only false choice is the one you made, where the choice of "just pay them more" exists in a vacuum unrelated to economic realities.
I do not offer it in a vacuum I point out that it is a third existent option alongside your two (there's undoubtedly others). To present the issue as one of "walmart pays people and they live on welfare or walmart doesn't exist and all they have is welfare" is just laughably narrow.
I laugh at 'economic realities.' I've seen maybe four posts in this entire thread that contain even a shred of economic thought. Most of the rest is just the same rhetorical gibberish that is this thread every time it comes up, and treats the economy like it runs on basic addition and subtraction.
I remember what my sociology Proff said recently
"You cant just throw money at poverty, Its a problem that is layered after years and years."
Then someone told me
"The war on poverty can never be won, just managed. Like the war on drugs, the war on crime and war on terrorism"
I personally thing both sides are looking at it wrong. Conservatives look on it as a moral failing of the poor, thinking them often lazy or some other stuff like that w/o looking at why some cant get work. While liberals look upon it that society is failing to provide for everyone, without realizing society cant provide for everyone.
Quite frankly, im tired of the "Living Wage" debate, Im just gonna watch the country fall
easysauce wrote:
while it may be true that walmarts employees collect welfare benefits in higher proportions then say, people who work at professional or skilled trades level jobs, to presume that they collect these benefits as a direct result of walmart is a bit of a stretch.
if walmart vanished tommorow, would these people somehow not be on welfare?
would that town be better off with those people earning an income(and gaining all the taxes from that income, as well as the walmart itself) and welfare benefits, or with just those people getting welfare benefits?
Actually, it's quite likely that they weren't on welfare before Walmart showed up. The big box stores have a system. They see a town without a walmart, and decide to build a walmart. Now, prior to the walmart, the town actually had small local businesses providing services, and paying employees. And as they were part of the community, they actually paid their employees a living wage.
Then Walmart shows up, and due to low pay rates and bulk purchasing power, undercuts all the local businesses. The small local shops go under, and the people who used to work at them resort to working at walmart, for lower wages and start to depend on government handouts to make ends meet.
This isn't just a walmart issue - pretty much any big box store has the same effect. My town used to (for decades) have a couple of pet shops. They competed with each other, but had knowledgeable staff, could answer questions, help you with issues. Then PetCo opened up. Within a year, both the local places were gone, they just couldn't compete with the pricing and staffing models of the big store. And, so now there's no where to go with questions, because the "associates" at PetCo don't know ----.
What's more, the towns are powerless to prevent this sort of thing. Walmart knows that if a town refuses to give them zoning rights, all they need to do is build in the unincorporated area a few miles out of town, or in the next town over. And by doing so, the effect on the local businesses is the same, but the town gets no tax revenue either, so the towns grudgingly let the Walmarts in.
hotsauceman1 wrote:I remember what my sociology Proff said recently
"You cant just throw money at poverty, Its a problem that is layered after years and years."
Then someone told me
"The war on poverty can never be won, just managed. Like the war on drugs, the war on crime and war on terrorism"
I personally thing both sides are looking at it wrong. Conservatives look on it as a moral failing of the poor, thinking them often lazy or some other stuff like that w/o looking at why some cant get work. While liberals look upon it that society is failing to provide for everyone, without realizing society cant provide for everyone.
Quite frankly, im tired of the "Living Wage" debate, Im just gonna watch the country fall
Actually, society -can- provide for everyone. It's through machinery and other productivity gains that there's really just less work that people need to do. Unfortunately, our approach has been to give the huge rewards of productivity gains to a very very small number of people, rather than spreading those productivity gains across the entire population.
It's all tied to the massive inequality in our society. When 1% of the people control 75% of the wealth, you can see that there's a lot of wealth that could be spread out a bit more and ensure that everyone was provided for.
It's all tied to the massive inequality in our society. When 1% of the people control 75% of the wealth, you can see that there's a lot of wealth that could be spread out a bit more and ensure that everyone was provided for.
Remind me again why the wealth gained by Peter should be redistributed to Paul?
cincydooley wrote: Remind me again why the wealth gained by Peter should be redistributed to Paul?
It isn't so much that wealth should be taken from Peter. The problem is that when Peter owns all the land and resources, he can keep Paul and everyone else trapped in a financial prison where they are only paid enough (by peter) to cover their rent (on land owned by Peter). People in that situation are effectively slaves.
If we had infinite space and resources and it was all just about how hard someone worked then redistribution would be unfair. But we live in a closed system, someone holding all the cards and not sharing just hurts everyone else.
It's all tied to the massive inequality in our society. When 1% of the people control 75% of the wealth, you can see that there's a lot of wealth that could be spread out a bit more and ensure that everyone was provided for.
Remind me again why the wealth gained by Peter should be redistributed to Paul?
Under certain political ideologies... Peter didn't build the rope, Paul did, so why should Paul earn a bunch of money off of the work that Paul did. In this instance, there is a certain level of "work" that Peter has to do in order to own/maintain his rope making factory, and so of course he should be earning decent money, but he should be doing so based on the WORK he does (acquiring new buyers, contracts, etc.), not off of the work of his employees.
It's not really "redistribution", it's being paid for your work, not raking in money based on someone else's work.
Since then, the wealthy have used their wealth to buy politicians favourable to lowering the amount they contribute to society. This isn't hard, as most politicians seem to come from the wealthy classes (or quickly join them once elected... hmmm....).
Government costs money. It's not a hard logical argument to make that those who benefit the most from what government provides should be the ones supporting it the most. A poor man gains little from a fire department - he has little to burn. He gains little from a police department, as he has little that will be stolen. A poor man stands to lose very little if the nation is invaded. In all these cases, the wealthy gain more from what taxes provide, but under our current laws, Warren Buffett's secretary pays a higher percentage of her income in taxes than he does.
It was argued that the wealthy would be job creators (False - in a consumer economy, it is the middle class that are the job creators, as spending by the middle class drives the economy), and that the tax cuts for the wealthy would "trickle down" to everyone else (Also false - the wealthy simply pocketed it).
The greatest redistribution of wealth already happened. The wealthy redistributed the middle class's money into their pockets. But now, when anyone mentions changing that, they sit and whine about how it's unfair to redistribute wealth. Of course they'd think that - they already did it, and want to keep what they stole.
The greatest redistribution of wealth already happened. The wealthy redistributed the middle class's money into their pockets. But now, when anyone mentions changing that, they sit and whine about how it's unfair to redistribute wealth. Of course they'd think that - they already did it, and want to keep what they stole.
Or they are operating under a false notion. Seriously, people like my grand parents, who are/were NEVER part of the 1% argue with me now over this very topic, and they always fall back on typical conservative notions of lazy people, trickle down economics, etc. So it's not just the wealthy who whine and moan about redistribution, the common man has been spoon fed bull gak for years, to where now, there are those who rail FOR that 1% and they are completely blind to how it negatively affects them.
cincydooley wrote: In the 1960s we also had an incredibly strong manufacturing industry, so that's a bit of a false positive.
But take into account ALL of the changes of the 1970s till now.... Deregulation in some areas, "over" regulation of others, unions seizing "power" and creating an environment where people are paid far too much for the amount of skill needed. Technological advances in manufacturing techniques requiring fewer people, etc.
I believe we could still have a very strong manufacturing presence, but there have been a number of political and realistic decisions that have made this very difficult.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Or they are operating under a false notion. Seriously, people like my grand parents, who are/were NEVER part of the 1% argue with me now over this very topic, and they always fall back on typical conservative notions of lazy people, trickle down economics, etc. So it's not just the wealthy who whine and moan about redistribution, the common man has been spoon fed bull gak for years, to where now, there are those who rail FOR that 1% and they are completely blind to how it negatively affects them.
.
I really hope that Reaganomics goes down in history books as being the most elaborate con job ever known to be pulled off successfully.
I agree daed. I have never understood why having centralised wealth results in better effects for society. Surely having a more even distribution of wealth which raises the spending power of the "mob" thus creating a "river"effect rather than a "trickle down". In my eyes having a small percentage of people rich is going to reduce the spending power of a society as more cash will be tied up in investments. Call me an economic numbskull but I would have thought it's better to have cash flowing through small businesses rather than in the stock market or other investments.
To me having more money flowing around the system makes sense, not lot's of money tied up in investments which might trickle down to the scum at the bottom.
I've never really understood how trickle down is supposed to work either. The whole idea of investing is to build your wealth, not diminish (i.e. share) it. Yes, the wealthy might invest their money, but after a certain period they will want that money back with interest. I don't see how the wealth of the 1% can be growing and trickling down at the same time. It should be called trickle up.
Smacks wrote: I've never really understood how trickle down is supposed to work either. The whole idea of investing is to build your wealth, not diminish (i.e. share) it. Yes, the wealthy might invest their money, but after a certain period they will want that money back with interest. I don't see how the wealth of the 1% can be growing and trickling down at the same time. It should be called trickle up.
Super simplistic explanation, but I believe the root of the idea (whether you believe it or not) is that it's because the rich create businesses which in turn create jobs.
Hordini wrote: Super simplistic explanation, but I believe the root of the idea (whether you believe it or not) is that it's because the rich create businesses which in turn create jobs.
Which kind of brings us full circle to the topic at hand. A 'job' could mean anything. The people working in Chinese sweatshops have jobs. The people who worked in 1800s workhouses had jobs too. But these kind of jobs, and the economic environment that forces people into them are not desirable. Having a small number of people controlling wealth leaves everyone else open to exploitation. Initiatives such as minimum wage are designed to protect workers from exploitation.
Hordini wrote: Super simplistic explanation, but I believe the root of the idea (whether you believe it or not) is that it's because the rich create businesses which in turn create jobs.
Which kind of brings us full circle to the topic at hand. A 'job' could mean anything. The people working in Chinese sweatshops have jobs. The people who worked in 1800s workhouses had jobs too. But these kind of jobs, and the economic environment that forces people into them is not desirable. Having a small number of people controlling wealth leaves everyone else open to exploitation. Initiatives such as minimum wage are designed to protect workers from exploitation.
Super simplistic explanation, but I believe the root of the idea (whether you believe it or not) is that it's because the rich create businesses which in turn create jobs.
The explanation that I've always seen was basically the super rich are supposed to spend that money on things. These "things" are made by people. And since the people making things need to get paid, they are; And they spend that money.
The problem with the line of reasoning, aside from the fact that we can see repeatedly that the rich simply tend to invest more of their newly acquired wealth into things to get MORE wealth, is that when they do buy things, it tends to be of a nature where not too many people benefit.
The Wealthiest 1% are generally above the standards of a Mercedes-Benz, they need a Morgan, or a Rolls Royce. Their boat/yachts are the uber-expensive hand made cottage industry companies.
This is why a strong middle class is so damn important. The middle class tend to spend more money on stuff, with a tiny fraction going to investments (compared to the wealthy), it's the middle class that buys the boats at Cabela's, the multitudes of TVs, gaming/theater systems, multiple "cheap" or mid range cars. It's the middle class that tend to populate the nation's bars and restaurants on nights when sporting events are going on. In short, the middle class is the one who actually creates the jobs and economy because it tends to spend, not invest.
