Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 easysauce wrote:
I worked up to 40$/hr from MC donalds wages....

We don't write economic policy based on 'what worked for easysauce'. We write policy based on what works for the majority of people.

And when you set a really low minimum wage, a hell of a lot less people drag themselves up in to middle class jobs. It's that simple, really.

Sure. The difference is what constitutes "really low minimum wage" is entirely subjective.

IMO, as long as you have money to spend on things which are not necessities you are making enough to be able to better yourself.

This means any sort of eating out(pack a lunch), ciggs and booze, any food item except basic foodstuffs, any entertainment which isn't free, paying for internet, cable, movie rentals, car(unless it is mandatory to get to work, IE: you absolutely cannot bike, walk, or use any other public transportation)

Anything of that sort is an area you have disposable income in, and could use towards improving yourself instead.

 surixurient wrote:
The minimum wage is the basis of the value of our currency. When you buy a widget it costs x hours of minimum wage. This basic realization is all it takes to understand what happens when the minimum wage is raised.

Your basic realistion is both simplistic and wrong. The minimum wage is one of thousands, possibly millions, of cost inputs in to the economy.

The value of work can not be artificially inflated, work has a specific value, if the number of dollars assigned to that work are increased by legislation than the value of the work was not increased, rather the value of those dollars just FELL.

The idea that the market is a perfectly accurate determinant of the worth of a thing is a piece of economic shorthand that just doesn't exist in the real world. Go and read about the perfect market, read about the assumptions necessary for it to actually work. Go read about information assymetry, unequal bargaining power, and zero transaction costs.

Think about that and realise the market is a good means of distributing labour resources, but it is far from a perfect determinant of 'worth'.

Even idiot americans like us with public school educations should be able to digest these simple realities, but apparently not.

The probably largely is that people are relying on public school educations with very, very little economics teaching, and then just making the wildly ignorant assumption that there mustn't be any more complexity to the issue than that.

xruslanx wrote:

 purplefood wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:

If only the poor smoke, why is the "fat cat big wig corporate leader CEO decision maker guy" always smoking a cigar?

...this is why debating on the internet is pointless.

You honestly are demanding that I prove that poor people smoke more than rich people? Sigh. There's some stats here if you like. I look forward to future posts demanding proof that the pope is catholic and that bears gak in the woods.

Sorry but there are more poor people than rich people so even if they smoke the same amount per person poor people overall will smoke more than rich people. You seem to be saying that either rich people don't smoke or drink or that they are exempt from vat...

Okay I'll spell it out nice and simply.

Cigarettes and alcohol make up a far larger percentage of the income of the poor than they do of the rich. Happy now?

Believe it or not that's because the poor has less money than the rich. The reason they add VAT to things like cigarettes and alcohol is because THEY ARE NOT NECESSITIES. You do not need them to live, they are luxury items. They may end up being worse on the poor since they have less disposable income but it's not aimed at the poor since rich people smoke and drink as well...
What you do need to live is food, heating and clothes. Which are at 0% VAT.

 surixurient wrote:
I would like to say that I want everyone to be able to afford 2 cars and a life of luxury. The way to make that happen is to provide the opportunities for them to achieve those goals. Getting out of their way would be the most important thing. And after that would be fostering a pro business environment, striking the right balance with environmental and labor issues to allow mines and factories to open in this country instead of over seas.

Thanks to years of stagnant wages at the bottom end of society, the sewing shops are coming back to the US from China. So you're getting your wish, I guess.

xruslanx wrote:

So what is the cause of him being harder working? I want to actually see him express his own sense of superiority over his fellow man that his opinion demonstrates, rather than hiding behind rhetoric.

I'll say it. I'm better at my job than other people I work with. As a result I was promoted within 2 years with the company twice

You're just spewing nonsense about smoking that ignores the issue we're raising: it's a completely non-essential vice item that no one is forced to use. Not a single person.

 surixurient wrote:
housing 6000 per year, transportation 2000-3000, food 2000-3000. If you can not earn that much in a year in an advanced economy, than there is something wrong with you, not with the economy.

Splitting the middle on transport and food we're at $11,000. Add in a couple of thousand for utilities and other bills, a couple of thousand for savings in case of emergencies (because cars break down, legs get broken...), two thousand for fun stuff (because these people are working 40 hour weeks, I think we can let them have $40 a week for entertainment) and then another two grand for education (because we all certainly believe the rhetoric about how they should be able to move up the employment ladder, don't we?) and then we're at $20,000.

Working a 40 hour week, 52 weeks a year that is $9.62 an hour.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:
Part of the problem is that I don't really interact with a lot of "poor" people, so maybe my perception is skewed, but the majority of the people I know or see who are "poor" don't appear to have any of that. Where are you seeing these people, and how do you know they're poor?

I think the trick is realising that a lot of the stuff that gets picked out like cable TV is actually pretty cheap when you think about the poor live.

I've told this story before on dakka, but I had some mates who were studying at uni and sharing a place together. They earned basic wages working whenever their uni schedule allowed. Renting is not cheap here in Perth. But they had cable and the internet. I said that stuff seemed like an unecessary expense.

They pointed out that the tv and internet was where they spent pretty much all their spare time. They had no money for cooking decent food, let alone eating out, or going to the movies, or going shopping or doing any of the stuff people with spare money spend their time doing. They played WOW, watch cable tv, and the total entertainment bill for the three of them came to about $150 a month. For the three of them.

When one of them got some spare money he bought a new tv, not top of the line but very nice. Because that was where he spent most of his entertainment time every week, so why not splash out?

But the stuff that seems standard to us, but you really feel the cost of... like food, those guys really scrimped and saved there. Pasta was really common. And noodles. And basically anything that can fill you up without having to include meat, because meat is expensive.


So for people that don't really get it, they'd look and see that these guys had cable tv and internet... so they must be doing just fine. What they don't get is how the value of different products changes when you're poor. Stuff like cable seems like a luxury when you're used to going out, the few hours a week you're at home killing time makes cable seem unecessary. But when you are poor, and basically cannot afford to go out and end up spending most of your spare time watching tv, the value of cable changes considerably.

Cigarettes and booze are taxed more because they generate income, due to the inelasticity of demand.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sure. The difference is what constitutes "really low minimum wage" is entirely subjective.

IMO, as long as you have money to spend on things which are not necessities you are making enough to be able to better yourself.

This means any sort of eating out(pack a lunch), ciggs and booze, any food item except basic foodstuffs, any entertainment which isn't free, paying for internet, cable, movie rentals, car(unless it is mandatory to get to work, IE: you absolutely cannot bike, walk, or use any other public transportation)

Anything of that sort is an area you have disposable income in, and could use towards improving yourself instead.

Yeah, its subjective. But ultimately we're talking about people here. Increasing their pay a pitifully small amount, so that they have a modest entertainment allowance, and then some money for education on top of that is hardly unthinkable.

I mean, remember we aren't talking about welfare here. We're talking about people who are working 40 hours a week. They're doing what we tell people they ought to do. It's the most minor act of decency to think that they might also get a spare of money above the necessities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Cigarettes and booze are taxed more because they generate income, due to the inelasticity of demand.

Yep. Fraz has it in one. Same reason petrol is taxed more.

 cincydooley wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

So what is the cause of him being harder working? I want to actually see him express his own sense of superiority over his fellow man that his opinion demonstrates, rather than hiding behind rhetoric.

I'll say it. I'm better at my job than other people I work with. As a result I was promoted within 2 years with the company twice

And the knowledge to do that higher level of employment just fell from the sky? You think people can become technicians, doctors, lawyers, IT workers and mechanics by working hard? Plenty of hard-working people at my work but they'll be lucky to break £9 an hour, even if they're amazing at their job.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Cigarettes and booze are taxed more because they generate income, due to the inelasticity of demand.

And the fact that this literally takes money out of the pockets of the poor is not a moral issue? You think it's right that the poor should have a lower disposable income due to these taxes?

xruslanx wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

So what is the cause of him being harder working? I want to actually see him express his own sense of superiority over his fellow man that his opinion demonstrates, rather than hiding behind rhetoric.

I'll say it. I'm better at my job than other people I work with. As a result I was promoted within 2 years with the company twice

And the knowledge to do that higher level of employment just fell from the sky? You think people can become technicians, doctors, lawyers, IT workers and mechanics by working hard? Plenty of hard-working people at my work but they'll be lucky to break £9 an hour, even if they're amazing at their job.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Cigarettes and booze are taxed more because they generate income, due to the inelasticity of demand.

And the fact that this literally takes money out of the pockets of the poor is not a moral issue? You think it's right that the poor should have a lower disposable income due to these taxes?

The poor can quit smoking and drinking. Every tax on anything but luxury yachts takes money from them at a disproportionate rate. The tax on warhammer models hits me harder then it does Will Smith. I'm not complaining though. I made the choice to buy the item.

They have a lower disposable income because they are spending it on stuff they don't need...

 djones520 wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

So what is the cause of him being harder working? I want to actually see him express his own sense of superiority over his fellow man that his opinion demonstrates, rather than hiding behind rhetoric.

I'll say it. I'm better at my job than other people I work with. As a result I was promoted within 2 years with the company twice

And the knowledge to do that higher level of employment just fell from the sky? You think people can become technicians, doctors, lawyers, IT workers and mechanics by working hard? Plenty of hard-working people at my work but they'll be lucky to break £9 an hour, even if they're amazing at their job.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Cigarettes and booze are taxed more because they generate income, due to the inelasticity of demand.

And the fact that this literally takes money out of the pockets of the poor is not a moral issue? You think it's right that the poor should have a lower disposable income due to these taxes?

The poor can quit smoking and drinking. Every tax on anything but luxury yachts takes money from them at a disproportionate rate. The tax on warhammer models hits me harder then it does Will Smith. I'm not complaining though. I made the choice to buy the item.

So you agree that taxes on tobacco and alcohol hit the poor?

They hit everyone buying alcohol and tobacco regardless of class or wealth...

xruslanx wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Cigarettes and booze are taxed more because they generate income, due to the inelasticity of demand.

And the fact that this literally takes money out of the pockets of the poor is not a moral issue? You think it's right that the poor should have a lower disposable income due to these taxes?

I'm not disagreeing. I'm just saying its done because its a sin tax and thus gets public support, on an inelastic good and thus they can tax a lot more. If you wanted to stop smoking you would draqg smokers out into the street, put a sign on them and cap them right there. It worked for the Chinese.

China, caring about its opium addicts for 200 years...

 Frazzled wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Cigarettes and booze are taxed more because they generate income, due to the inelasticity of demand.

And the fact that this literally takes money out of the pockets of the poor is not a moral issue? You think it's right that the poor should have a lower disposable income due to these taxes?

I'm not disagreeing. I'm just saying its done because its a sin tax and thus gets public support, on an inelastic good and thus they can tax a lot more. If you wanted to stop smoking you would draqg smokers out into the street, put a sign on them and cap them right there. It worked for the Chinese.

China, caring about its opium addicts for 200 years...

Well opium is a little different to tobacco. Of course "the public" supports such taxes, because a majority of the public doesn't smoke. Regardless, the duty levied on tobacco and alcohol is far lower than that levied on the toys of the rich.

Studies have shown its easier to quit heroin then quit smoking.

 purplefood wrote:
They hit everyone buying alcohol and tobacco regardless of class or wealth...

It is a regressive formula though since that "same" amount impacts people of low income more than people of higher income. This is a well known fact and ignoring it is simply ideological blinders.




The question is do we want to make a system that punishes hard work and trying to work, or a system that rewards it? Making it pointless to work a full-time entry level job for two years and still falling behind is not a way to keep people in the workforce and off the state's dime.

I thought you Conservative types hated welfare, but you also want to punish those who are working too. This ideologoy makes no logical sense, I mean think about it!

Low income workers have a rather stark choice, you can work your tail off and barely survive hoping for a break that might move you into the middle class, or you could not work your tail off and barely survive for the rest of your life but at least you are not working forever? Is that even a choice we want people to even consider? No, we want the insentives to be a productive worker to be so self-evident that it is a no brainer.

Why is this even an argument, it should be self-evident, unless the motivation are "I've got mine, and the rest of you can Feth off" there is no reason to put people in a place where not working becomes a valid decision and logical decision point.

 Easy E wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
They hit everyone buying alcohol and tobacco regardless of class or wealth...

It is a regressive formula though since that "same" amount impacts people of low income more than people of higher income. This is a well known fact and ignoring it is simply ideological blinders.




The question is do we want to make a system that punishes hard work and trying to work, or a system that rewards it? Making it pointless to work a full-time entry level job for two years and still falling behind is not a way to keep people in the workforce and off the state's dime.

I thought you Conservative types hated welfare, but you also want to punish those who are working too. This ideologoy makes no logical sense, I mean think about it!

Low income workers have a rather stark choice, you can work your tail off and barely survive hoping for a break that might move you into the middle class, or you could not work your tail off and barely survive for the rest of your life but at least you are not working forever? Is that even a choice we want people to even consider? No, we want the insentives to be a productive worker to be so self-evident that it is a no brainer.

Why is this even an argument, it should be self-evident, unless the motivation are "I've got mine, and the rest of you can Feth off" there is no reason to put people in a place where not working becomes a valid decision and logical decision point.

Welfare over here is a whole lot less than even minimum wage and unless you fill certain conditions you can even get cut of from welfare entirely.

And of course the motivation is "I've got mine, and the rest of you can feth off", because unless the raise in minimum wages is accompanied by a proportional raise in every other wage (leading to general inflation = useless raise in the first place), then a raise in minimum wage means that my own work just got devalued and I now make proportionally less...

xruslanx wrote:

And the knowledge to do that higher level of employment just fell from the sky? You think people can become technicians, doctors, lawyers, IT workers and mechanics by working hard? Plenty of hard-working people at my work but they'll be lucky to break £9 an hour, even if they're amazing at their job.

?

Well, initially it came from going to college, which I am paying for on my own, and then it came from a lot of on the job learning. So in short, it all came from hard work. I can guarantee you that someone that came from a poorer background than me would have been able to do the exact same thing. The big difference? They'd have had to take far less in private student loans than I did.

@Easy E - well of course if I make $1000 a week and someone else makes $500 a week that $35 a week smoking habit is going to hit the person making $500 "harder" in terms of a percentage of their income. But tha still doesn't mean they have to smoke. It's a completely voluntary act that is also completely non essential.

As far as choosing to work your ass off to try and get ahead and to not work at all and never get ahead, I'd take the first option every time without hesitation. It's called having some conviction and having a work ethic. And quite frankly, how hard people work is often inverse to the class they grew up in. Most people I know that are in the workforce and are from lower income families have a better work ethic, as a whole, than those born with the silver spoon.

 cincydooley wrote:

@Easy E - well of course if I make $1000 a week and someone else makes $500 a week that $35 a week smoking habit is going to hit the person making $500 "harder" in terms of a percentage of their income. But tha still doesn't mean they have to smoke. It's a completely voluntary act that is also completely non essential.

Agreed, but you have to realize when you are poor things like smoking are your only recreation. You don't drive around town listening to the radio, go on weekend trips, go to the pub much, it is like Sebs story about the TV. That is all you do to kill time (and possibly hunger) and then you are addicted.

 cincydooley wrote:


As far as choosing to work your ass off to try and get ahead and to not work at all and never get ahead, I'd take the first option every time without hesitation. It's called having some conviction and having a work ethic. And quite frankly, how hard people work is often inverse to the class they grew up in. Most people I know that are in the workforce and are from lower income families have a better work ethic, as a whole, than those born with the silver spoon.

Sure. Me too. However, why is it not self-evident that our choice is the right answer beacuse it should be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:

And of course the motivation is "I've got mine, and the rest of you can feth off", because unless the raise in minimum wages is accompanied by a proportional raise in every other wage (leading to general inflation = useless raise in the first place), then a raise in minimum wage means that my own work just got devalued and I now make proportionally less...

Well, I'm glad you aren't trying to fool yourself.

Of course, what does proportionally less mean when you already have a living wage? Is it a new car every 4 years instead of every 5? Is it 2 or 3 less coffees a month? Is it regular 93% lean beef instead of organic 93% lean beef?

And Conservative-Types complain about others being "entitled"?

 Easy E wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

And of course the motivation is "I've got mine, and the rest of you can feth off", because unless the raise in minimum wages is accompanied by a proportional raise in every other wage (leading to general inflation = useless raise in the first place), then a raise in minimum wage means that my own work just got devalued and I now make proportionally less...

Well, I'm glad you aren't trying to fool yourself.

Of course, what does proportionally less mean when you already have a living wage? Is it a new car every 4 years instead of every 5? Is it 2 or 3 less coffees a month? Is it regular 93% lean beef instead of organic 93% lean beef?

And Conservative-Types complain about others being "entitled"?

Of course I'm not deluding myself, that is what it all boils down to: personal greed, its the reason that humanity has evolved from living in caves to reaching the stars...

And who cares what proportionally less means? If part of what it takes for me to get a new smart phone at a more affordable cost is that some guy has to live in a one bedroom apartment, then so be it, I couldn't care less and the horrible truth is that you couldn't care less as well.

The shadow of many an elbow-patch-wearing college professor is being cast long and deep across this thread.

 Easy E wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

@Easy E - well of course if I make $1000 a week and someone else makes $500 a week that $35 a week smoking habit is going to hit the person making $500 "harder" in terms of a percentage of their income. But tha still doesn't mean they have to smoke. It's a completely voluntary act that is also completely non essential.

Agreed, but you have to realize when you are poor things like smoking are your only recreation. You don't drive around town listening to the radio, go on weekend trips, go to the pub much, it is like Sebs story about the TV. That is all you do to kill time (and possibly hunger) and then you are addicted.

And yet, for the same $35 a week, you could buy more food (Ramen Noodles is 20 packs for $5), getting you through a couple more days without hunger, you could buy a Library Card (If said library isn't just free) and be entertained for DAYS. You can go for jogs/workout on open gym nights. Go to the park and pick up litter/relax. Buy a TV and watch it (Seb's story says it's doable, and guess what? Not "Poor Taxed" like Alcohol/Cigs.

Search for a second job, even if all it is is picking trash up along the road.

There are plenty of things you can do without haing to smoke/drink while poor.

 surixurient wrote:
The shadow of many an elbow-patch-wearing college professor is being cast long and deep across this thread.

One thing I learned is to stop listen to collegee Proffs when it comes to politics. My feminism teacher was ranting about hr cuba trip saying about how great a place it was. Saying they had healthcare and food and how they where free.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 surixurient wrote:
The shadow of many an elbow-patch-wearing college professor is being cast long and deep across this thread.

One thing I learned is to stop listen to collegee Proffs when it comes to politics. My feminism teacher was ranting about hr cuba trip saying about how great a place it was. Saying they had healthcare and food and how they where free.

They are as free as Fidel feels like making them that day.

Pretty much. I tried to make her see the hypocrisy from what she was saying earlier about how we all have to write to freedom of speech and yet she was saying how cuba was free.

 surixurient wrote:
The shadow of many an elbow-patch-wearing college professor is being cast long and deep across this thread.

Well, you know what they say: Some days you're wearing the tweed jacket with leather patches, some days you're wearing the Che t-shirt.


I'm going to combine them with a beret one of these days and see if I turn into a member of Chumbawumba.

xruslanx wrote:
And the fact that this literally takes money out of the pockets of the poor is not a moral issue? You think it's right that the poor should have a lower disposable income due to these taxes?

You can have a tax impact the poor more, and then account for that with offsetting distributions elsewhere. Raise the excise on cigarettes, and then use that increased revenue to increase welfare payments and low income rebates. Cigarettes are discouraged (hopefully in the long term, though figures are kind of patchy on the subject), and meanwhile the poor who smoke break even, the poor who don't get more money, and the middle class and rich who smoke pay more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
The question is do we want to make a system that punishes hard work and trying to work, or a system that rewards it? Making it pointless to work a full-time entry level job for two years and still falling behind is not a way to keep people in the workforce and off the state's dime.

I thought you Conservative types hated welfare, but you also want to punish those who are working too. This ideologoy makes no logical sense, I mean think about it!

Yeah, this is the conclusion I'm seeing more and more. When we have welfare threads the usual suspects come in to complain about how welfare means that lazy people aren't made to work, and argue for reduced or even no welfare. Then in a thread on the minimum wage they come in and argue for no increase, or even its abolition.

The only question now is whether what's motivating these people is sociopathic indifference ("feth you, I've got mine") or just simple spite (because in many cases the reforms are better for the poor and better for society as a whole, and opposing them can only really be motivated out of a desire for the poor to remain as poor as possible).

I don't think the idea that menial jobs should entail low wages necessarily implies spite. Just thinking beyond my own views, it could imply the notion that merit -- yes, a complex and totally problematic term -- should be the key factor in determining whether someone earns (another problematic key word) a better or worse wage.