minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good

[Eldon]

Another hot-off-the-press minimum wage study (using a very credible research design)

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/06/minimum-wage-evidence-danish-discontinuity.html

tldr: Denmark increases minimum wage 40% (!) once a worker turns 18.  Workers very near the wrong side of the 18-year old cutoff see their employment drop by 33%.

[warriorchick]

They will figure out how to compress the data better, reduce the overall payload, and increase cloud storage capacity.....but that's going to take considerably more than 5 years to figure it all out.

No worries.  This guy can figure it out.  He already has the compression part done:

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

i briefly scanned my comments and i didn't really see anything intimating that we "shouldn't help them"  as a matter of fact, i have proposed the opposite as we already have many "safety nets" in place to help them.  one of them is within your comment-libraries.  yes libraries are one of the free services we provide.  i also posted the site that lists all the grants available and where to find them.  you may be misunderstanding  my comments as i am for helping them, NOT providing them with a lifestyle.  what i mean by that is becoming dependant upon our "free services"  they were meant as a temporary aid until they can get back on their feet. 

"poor by choice"  not sure i said that either, but rather poor by choices made maybe.  bad decisions and then claiming victim status.  politicians love this one b/c it creates a full time job=advocacy for more of our money as opposed to helping them get out of their rut

Since you briefly scanned your comments, I'll point out what I'm talking about.

The "poor by choice": You have implied that people are poor because they buy unncesseary things:

one of the problems with people who don't earn very much is prioritizing.  living within their means,  there is a lot of peer pressure to have "air jordans" the newest cell phone, expensive designer/pre-ripped jeans, etc.  all the commercials glorifying unnecessary chit.  i call some of these people "dime-store rich"

lose the cell phone, drop the internet, quit smoking and drinking, get your clothes from goodwill, ride the bus.  yes, i know it sounds heartless, but you do what you have to do to survive short of breaking the law. 

You have implied that people are poor because they are alcoholics, smokers, and I assume drug user was implied

quit smoking and drinking

You have implied that people are poor because they have babies they can't afford. Which again I ask, is your expectation that people don't have sex until they make a middle class income?

if you cannot afford something, another child, the new car, you can't have it-don't try to buy it!!

do not become a parent until you can handle it emotionally and financially 

You have also implied that poor people are lazy by both not showing up for work and not getting an education

go back to school for a trade?  learn how to manage people, show up for work, finish school

there are people who can help themselves, but do not.

You have also implied that poor people choose to game the system

then there are some people who cannot help themselves-just like handicapped parking tags, the more able bodied people are ruining it for those who do genuinely need help

You have also implied that poor people are fat by choice (and thus are spending too much on food)

   "Not to mention that I can feed a family on unhealthy crap for a lot cheaper"

mcdonalds offers salads and apple slices(used to anyway) instead of grease and fries.  i don't think the apple slices went over so well either-big shocker, ayyn'a? 

All of these are stereotypes and myths about people in poverty that are extremely dangerous. You have listed repeatedly all the choices you think people make to be poor. That if they just didn't make all these bad choices they could get out of poverty. The reality is that the VAST majority of people who are poor are there because they were born into it. They didn't have good nutrition growing up, they didn't get to go to summer camp, they didn't have a choice of what school they went to (and in most cases their only choice was a bad one), if they got jobs all of the money came back to the home to help pay for rent, food, clothes, and school supplies. The second largest group in poverty? people with mental disabilities. The third largest group? People who got their because of medical debt. They weren't buying the new air jordans. They were buying a surgery that they needed or a child needed to survive. Only after these three huge groups do you start to get to your "dime store rich" people as you called it.

I don't know that "victim status" is the word that I would use to describe most people in poverty. But if by "victim status" you mean that they got into poverty because of forces beyond their control then yes, a vast majority of people in poverty are victims.

As for the "shouldn't help them" sentiment. I got that from here:

  when we continue to give give give, one has no incentive to better themselves.  are there exceptions?  absolutely, but when you give away "free" stuff, you will draw a crowd.  has anyone here ever fed stray cats?  no, i'm not comparing our less than fortunate to stray cats, just the concept.

You said I was a glass half empty person. I'm not. I believe that if you "give give give" people will use that to try and improve their lives. I don't think that people are lazy and asking to be in poverty. Now you did go onto provide a site with grants. That is wonderful (and an example of "give give giving"). But you have to understand that removes one small barrier for a very small portion of the population. If you dropped out of high school because you needed to work full time to help your parent put food on the table then a grant to a trade school means nothing to you.

You are good man Rocket, but what I think I am reacting to is that you seem to demand perfection from those in poverty. If they make a frivolous purchase, then they are choosing to be poor and are now abusing the system. If they have an unplanned pregnancy, then they are choosing to be poor and are now abusing the system. If they aren't going to school then they must be lazy and are now abusing the system. Human beings aren't perfect, and will never be perfect. They deserve some grace when they make mistakes especially when they start so far down on the economic food chain. I mean you don't see people judging you for your frivolous purchases. Don't you know that you could be middle upper class by now if you didn't buy all those things you didn't need! (I'm making some assumptions based on someone who is a career rocket surgeon  )

Now in a way, you are right to demand perfection. Because perfection and more than a little luck is what is required to escape the cycle of poverty without help from others. But the reality is, you could be the perfect poor person, go back to school, work three jobs, never have sex to avoid unplanned pregnancy, don't make any frivolous purchases and you could still end up in poverty. The system is rigged against them. That is why "safety net" programs are so important and why it is critical that that we don't judge those who use them. Yes, there will be some who abuse it. We should take steps to keep that from happening. But at the same time we need to recognize that the abusers are the vast minority and to treat all in poverty as abusers is at best disingenuous and at worst can be extremely harmful. Especially when politicians use the small % of abusers as a justification for cutting safety net programs.

[Spotcheck Billy]

What about you as it this statement you wrote does not square ...

The Semi's that are on the roads that can "drive themselves on interstates" are still test vehicles from really only 3 companies.  Let's run the numbers on how much it would cost for 1000's of test vehicles (or even simply 1000).

I look forward to some tortured definition of autonomous.  My definition is if you don't need your feet on the pedals (anti-collision) or hands on the wheel (lane assist), it's autonomous.  That is what the article describes and UPS alone has 2,600 of them.  There are thousands of trucks with this capability on the road today, not 3 test trucks.

Quit being Luddite like ATL who thinks the future of autos is pleasing unions and satisfying dealers.  This industry is going to have epic change and will bear little resemblance to its current self in a few years. 

No, UPS has ordered 2600, even your prior posts didn't state these were even delivered yet.

[StillAWarrior]

No, UPS has ordered 2600, even your prior posts didn't state these were even delivered yet.

Nevermind the fact that the article describes these as, "...safety features that UPS considers a precursor to more automated driving technologies."  In other words, what UPS considers "safety features" that are "a precursor to more automated driving technologies," Heisy considers autonomous driving.   Hell, you can get a Toyota Corrolla adaptive cruise control and lane departure alerts for under $20k.

[warriorchick]

I just love it when a Scoop thread turns into a dick-swinging contest.

That reminds me....has anyone seen Keefe lately?

[mu03eng]

I just love it when a Scoop thread turns into a dick-swinging contest.

That reminds me....has anyone seen Keefe lately?

I heard if you say his name into a mirror three times he'll show up in your bathroom with vintage 80s porn on betamax

[MU82]

Since you briefly scanned your comments, I'll point out what I'm talking about.

The "poor by choice": You have implied that people are poor because they buy unncesseary things:

You have implied that people are poor because they are alcoholics, smokers, and I assume drug user was implied

You have implied that people are poor because they have babies they can't afford. Which again I ask, is your expectation that people don't have sex until they make a middle class income?


You have also implied that poor people are lazy by both not showing up for work and not getting an education

You have also implied that poor people choose to game the system

You have also implied that poor people are fat by choice (and thus are spending too much on food)

All of these are stereotypes and myths about people in poverty that are extremely dangerous. You have listed repeatedly all the choices you think people make to be poor. That if they just didn't make all these bad choices they could get out of poverty. The reality is that the VAST majority of people who are poor are there because they were born into it. They didn't have good nutrition growing up, they didn't get to go to summer camp, they didn't have a choice of what school they went to (and in most cases their only choice was a bad one), if they got jobs all of the money came back to the home to help pay for rent, food, clothes, and school supplies. The second largest group in poverty? people with mental disabilities. The third largest group? People who got their because of medical debt. They weren't buying the new air jordans. They were buying a surgery that they needed or a child needed to survive. Only after these three huge groups do you start to get to your "dime store rich" people as you called it.

I don't know that "victim status" is the word that I would use to describe most people in poverty. But if by "victim status" you mean that they got into poverty because of forces beyond their control then yes, a vast majority of people in poverty are victims.

As for the "shouldn't help them" sentiment. I got that from here:

You said I was a glass half empty person. I'm not. I believe that if you "give give give" people will use that to try and improve their lives. I don't think that people are lazy and asking to be in poverty. Now you did go onto provide a site with grants. That is wonderful (and an example of "give give giving"). But you have to understand that removes one small barrier for a very small portion of the population. If you dropped out of high school because you needed to work full time to help your parent put food on the table then a grant to a trade school means nothing to you.

You are good man Rocket, but what I think I am reacting to is that you seem to demand perfection from those in poverty. If they make a frivolous purchase, then they are choosing to be poor and are now abusing the system. If they have an unplanned pregnancy, then they are choosing to be poor and are now abusing the system. If they aren't going to school then they must be lazy and are now abusing the system. Human beings aren't perfect, and will never be perfect. They deserve some grace when they make mistakes especially when they start so far down on the economic food chain. I mean you don't see people judging you for your frivolous purchases. Don't you know that you could be middle upper class by now if you didn't buy all those things you didn't need! (I'm making some assumptions based on someone who is a career rocket surgeon  )

Now in a way, you are right to demand perfection. Because perfection and more than a little luck is what is required to escape the cycle of poverty without help from others. But the reality is, you could be the perfect poor person, go back to school, work three jobs, never have sex to avoid unplanned pregnancy, don't make any frivolous purchases and you could still end up in poverty. The system is rigged against them. That is why "safety net" programs are so important and why it is critical that that we don't judge those who use them. Yes, there will be some who abuse it. We should take steps to keep that from happening. But at the same time we need to recognize that the abusers are the vast minority and to treat all in poverty as abusers is at best disingenuous and at worst can be extremely harmful. Especially when politicians use the small % of abusers as a justification for cutting safety net programs.

Perhaps the post of the year.

Eff it ... no "perhaps" about it.

The ultimate compliment: I wish I had written it!

[rocket surgeon]

Since you briefly scanned your comments, I'll point out what I'm talking about.

The "poor by choice": You have implied that people are poor because they buy unncesseary things:

You have implied that people are poor because they are alcoholics, smokers, and I assume drug user was implied

You have implied that people are poor because they have babies they can't afford. Which again I ask, is your expectation that people don't have sex until they make a middle class income?


You have also implied that poor people are lazy by both not showing up for work and not getting an education

You have also implied that poor people choose to game the system

You have also implied that poor people are fat by choice (and thus are spending too much on food)

All of these are stereotypes and myths about people in poverty that are extremely dangerous. You have listed repeatedly all the choices you think people make to be poor. That if they just didn't make all these bad choices they could get out of poverty. The reality is that the VAST majority of people who are poor are there because they were born into it. They didn't have good nutrition growing up, they didn't get to go to summer camp, they didn't have a choice of what school they went to (and in most cases their only choice was a bad one), if they got jobs all of the money came back to the home to help pay for rent, food, clothes, and school supplies. The second largest group in poverty? people with mental disabilities. The third largest group? People who got their because of medical debt. They weren't buying the new air jordans. They were buying a surgery that they needed or a child needed to survive. Only after these three huge groups do you start to get to your "dime store rich" people as you called it.

I don't know that "victim status" is the word that I would use to describe most people in poverty. But if by "victim status" you mean that they got into poverty because of forces beyond their control then yes, a vast majority of people in poverty are victims.

As for the "shouldn't help them" sentiment. I got that from here:

You said I was a glass half empty person. I'm not. I believe that if you "give give give" people will use that to try and improve their lives. I don't think that people are lazy and asking to be in poverty. Now you did go onto provide a site with grants. That is wonderful (and an example of "give give giving"). But you have to understand that removes one small barrier for a very small portion of the population. If you dropped out of high school because you needed to work full time to help your parent put food on the table then a grant to a trade school means nothing to you.

You are good man Rocket, but what I think I am reacting to is that you seem to demand perfection from those in poverty. If they make a frivolous purchase, then they are choosing to be poor and are now abusing the system. If they have an unplanned pregnancy, then they are choosing to be poor and are now abusing the system. If they aren't going to school then they must be lazy and are now abusing the system. Human beings aren't perfect, and will never be perfect. They deserve some grace when they make mistakes especially when they start so far down on the economic food chain. I mean you don't see people judging you for your frivolous purchases. Don't you know that you could be middle upper class by now if you didn't buy all those things you didn't need! (I'm making some assumptions based on someone who is a career rocket surgeon  )

Now in a way, you are right to demand perfection. Because perfection and more than a little luck is what is required to escape the cycle of poverty without help from others. But the reality is, you could be the perfect poor person, go back to school, work three jobs, never have sex to avoid unplanned pregnancy, don't make any frivolous purchases and you could still end up in poverty. The system is rigged against them. That is why "safety net" programs are so important and why it is critical that that we don't judge those who use them. Yes, there will be some who abuse it. We should take steps to keep that from happening. But at the same time we need to recognize that the abusers are the vast minority and to treat all in poverty as abusers is at best disingenuous and at worst can be extremely harmful. Especially when politicians use the small % of abusers as a justification for cutting safety net programs.

   abstinence from sex??  that's it! now you've crossed the line and

  in all seriousness, is contraception really that expensive.  no, i am not that strict of a catholic to accuse those who use it of violating God's will. 

implications of choosing poverty?  nope.  the continuity of making bad choices leading to generations of poverty-yes. not going to school, not showing up for work on a regular basis.  hanging with the wrong crowd.  i know it's tough in the inner city.  have i lived there? i thank God i haven't had to along with many other things.   

  as for "safety nets"  there have to be limitations because too many people have made accepting aid a lifestyle and a replacement for having to work.  it leaves them with more free time than they can handle.  the free time is where the bad choices are made.  government aid was originally put in to place as a temporary crutch.  i remember when people were either too proud or ashamed to accept government aid, food stamps, et.al.  now, it's an entitlement and it's ruining it for people who legitimately need help.

i cannot disagree with most of the rest of your statements.  there is no simple solution, but as humane as it may sound to help people, remember, no good deed goes unpunished.  by continually giving, in the long run, we are really doing most of these people a disservice and we are essentially enslaving them to the system.  they aren't free-rather they are beholden to the government.  many can't or won't work because it may make them ineligible to receive their aid.  and on and on.  so it's just easier(less complicated) for them not to work which leads us back to an excess of free time...vicious cycle we have created, but we meant well, right?
 

[jesmu84]

Yes. Birth control is expensive if you don't have or can't afford insurance/prescription coverage. If that's a point of contention, we should be encouraging programs and care centers that would make birth control and education affordable and easily accessible.

Is that a good idea?

[MU82]

Yes. Birth control is expensive if you don't have or can't afford insurance/prescription coverage. If that's a point of contention, we should be encouraging programs and care centers that would make birth control and education affordable and easily accessible.

Is that a good idea?

Of course it is. But unwed sexy time is a sin, so no birth control for you!

That way, you get preggers. And if you happen to live in one of the many Republican-controlled states where it has become practically impossible for women (especially poor ones) to get an abortion, you have the kid you don't want and can't afford.

And when that kid grows up in abject poverty, a few years later the rocketmen out there can blame the kid for making the bad choice of being born into poverty. Shame on that kid!

[B. McBannerson]

Low level Seattle workers hurt per University of Washington.  Hours cut back, net pay take home dropped. Maybe they can figure out a good solution between business and workers.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/26/seattle-s-minimum-wage-hike-hurting-low-level-workers-study-says.html

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

   abstinence from sex??  that's it! now you've crossed the line and

  in all seriousness, is contraception really that expensive.  no, i am not that strict of a catholic to accuse those who use it of violating God's will.   

Its not when there are planned parenthoods giving it out for free. But there are those out there trying to shut that down. And when your below the poverty line even a box of condoms can be an enormous purchase. Plus, even with all the birth control in the world, it is still possible to have a baby. I'm glad you don't judge those who use birth control. I have often found those who judge unplanned babies also judge birth control which literally means they don't think poor people should be allowed to have sex.

implications of choosing poverty?  nope.  the continuity of making bad choices leading to generations of poverty-yes. not going to school, not showing up for work on a regular basis.  hanging with the wrong crowd.  i know it's tough in the inner city.  have i lived there? i thank God i haven't had to along with many other things.   

  as for "safety nets"  there have to be limitations because too many people have made accepting aid a lifestyle and a replacement for having to work.  it leaves them with more free time than they can handle.  the free time is where the bad choices are made.  government aid was originally put in to place as a temporary crutch.  i remember when people were either too proud or ashamed to accept government aid, food stamps, et.al.  now, it's an entitlement and it's ruining it for people who legitimately need help.

Rocketman, I'm telling you, these are myths. The vast majority of poor people show up for work on time (hell, they probably show up for work more frequently than us with our vacation days and sick days). The vast majority do go to school but they can only afford to go to the local public school that is underfunded and likely has teachers that overworked, underpaid, and in many cases checked out and unqualified. Most of them would kill for a chance to get a higher degree or a trade degree but they need to work full time so they can send money home to their family. Very few are "accepting aid as a lifestyle and a replacement for work." Most are embarrassed that they need to accept aid and are working multiple jobs to try and get off of it. You are looking at the smallest % of those in poverty and generalizing it to the rest of the group. Don't label an entire group of people based on the actions of a few bad apples. Unless you think it is fair for people to assume that all white men from Milwaukee are cannibalistic serial killers because of Dahmer.

i cannot disagree with most of the rest of your statements.  there is no simple solution, but as humane as it may sound to help people, remember, no good deed goes unpunished.  by continually giving, in the long run, we are really doing most of these people a disservice and we are essentially enslaving them to the system.  they aren't free-rather they are beholden to the government.  many can't or won't work because it may make them ineligible to receive their aid.  and on and on.  so it's just easier(less complicated) for them not to work which leads us back to an excess of free time...vicious cycle we have created, but we meant well, right?
 

I'm not saying that we don't constantly evaluate the aid we are giving and try to improve it. But I am saying that you don't stop giving because a vast minority will abuse it. Why focus on the one who abuses and ignore the dozens who legitimately need it and use it?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Perhaps the post of the year.

Eff it ... no "perhaps" about it.

The ultimate compliment: I wish I had written it!

[rocket surgeon]

tamu-i'm sure you are correct up to a point, but the numbers of people who have altogether stopped looking for work is at all time highs-i understand that we do have many many hard working people who can't afford stuff, but if the market cannot support just giving them more money per hour so they can buy condoms, et.al. houston, we've got a ........

  " ........................ in January 2009, 80,529,000 Americans were not in the labor force, the highest number on record. That number rose steadily during the presidents two terms, reaching a record 95,055,000 in November 2016, then setting another record (95,102,000) in December."

   *note-i am not using this quote for political purposes.  rather, as a reference of a point in time

  i've got to think there are some able bodied people in that 95 + million.  that's a lot of people who have made some bad choices and continue to do so.  they are not counted in the unemployment numbers which nationally, range between 4-5%.

   i just googled condoms-i see many ads for FREE condoms to 12 pak for $3.99.  not sure how much for the harlit      .30 for anywhere from 20 seconds to an afternoon delight ein'er?  that KY stuff is expensive though-gonna have to be innovative-what's a can of cool whip go for

if a certain group of people would allow school choice so there would be some competition to the public versions and give parents an alternative.  it would or should force both the public and the choice schools to better themselves

everyone throws out there "living wage"  what is that?  one's "living wage" may not be the same as anothers.  if you force a McDonalds for example to pay their workers a "living wage", they have to raise their prices accordingly and then the very people we are talking about will not be able to afford them

      *mcdonalds as an example can be any other number of lower priced dining options-burger king, kfc, wendy's, popeye's, long johnny silvers, arby's, carl jr's etc

but back to this "living wage" thing-businesses are no more responsible for paying a random salary to someone so they can "live" than they can dictate what and how they spend that money on,  a business is subject to what the market allows and what he/she deems is worthy.  now they may price themselves out of the market as well, but that is how the game is played.  there are risks involved on both sides.  have you ever tried opening a business?  there are many hurdles and risks involved before you even get to be able to pay your employees a "living wage".  one of the challenges of a business owner is to find GOOD employees.  when ya do, you pay them well or you lose them. 

but back to the original premise of this post-if that 95 + million number is even close-that's a lot of people who aren't working of which man could, but are using the "system" as a lifestyle choice=free time=ruh-roh time
 

[jesmu84]

A living wage is something predetermined. It's not variable to each person.

I would also highly doubt that there are even half as many jobs available as people who aren't working. 40 million job openings right now? That aren't seasonal/temporary/minimum wage? No freaking way

[Galway Eagle]

tamu-i'm sure you are correct up to a point, but the numbers of people who have altogether stopped looking for work is at all time highs-i understand that we do have many many hard working people who can't afford stuff, but if the market cannot support just giving them more money per hour so they can buy condoms, et.al. houston, we've got a ........

  " ........................ in January 2009, 80,529,000 Americans were not in the labor force, the highest number on record. That number rose steadily during the presidents two terms, reaching a record 95,055,000 in November 2016, then setting another record (95,102,000) in December."

   *note-i am not using this quote for political purposes.  rather, as a reference of a point in time

  i've got to think there are some able bodied people in that 95 + million.  that's a lot of people who have made some bad choices and continue to do so.  they are not counted in the unemployment numbers which nationally, range between 4-5%.

   i just googled condoms-i see many ads for FREE condoms to 12 pak for $3.99.  not sure how much for the harlit      .30 for anywhere from 20 seconds to an afternoon delight ein'er?  that KY stuff is expensive though-gonna have to be innovative-what's a can of cool whip go for

if a certain group of people would allow school choice so there would be some competition to the public versions and give parents an alternative.  it would or should force both the public and the choice schools to better themselves

everyone throws out there "living wage"  what is that?  one's "living wage" may not be the same as anothers.  if you force a McDonalds for example to pay their workers a "living wage", they have to raise their prices accordingly and then the very people we are talking about will not be able to afford them

      *mcdonalds as an example can be any other number of lower priced dining options-burger king, kfc, wendy's, popeye's, long johnny silvers, arby's, carl jr's etc

but back to this "living wage" thing-businesses are no more responsible for paying a random salary to someone so they can "live" than they can dictate what and how they spend that money on,  a business is subject to what the market allows and what he/she deems is worthy.  now they may price themselves out of the market as well, but that is how the game is played.  there are risks involved on both sides.  have you ever tried opening a business?  there are many hurdles and risks involved before you even get to be able to pay your employees a "living wage".  one of the challenges of a business owner is to find GOOD employees.  when ya do, you pay them well or you lose them. 

but back to the original premise of this post-if that 95 + million number is even close-that's a lot of people who aren't working of which man could, but are using the "system" as a lifestyle choice=free time=ruh-roh time
 

Googling condoms A) requires internet that you yourself said they should cut off because it's a frivolous expense. B) requires forethought for every sexual escapade. If you're doing the deed when you're in High School how much forethought is there really?

Go to your local Walgreens a twelve pack is much more than 2.99

[GGGG]

tamu-i'm sure you are correct up to a point, but the numbers of people who have altogether stopped looking for work is at all time highs-i understand that we do have many many hard working people who can't afford stuff, but if the market cannot support just giving them more money per hour so they can buy condoms, et.al. houston, we've got a ........

  " ........................ in January 2009, 80,529,000 Americans were not in the labor force, the highest number on record. That number rose steadily during the presidents two terms, reaching a record 95,055,000 in November 2016, then setting another record (95,102,000) in December."

You do realize that there are a number of reasons why this might be the case.

**Baby-boomer retirements
**Spouses leaving the workforce to care for a child
**People leaving to go back to school

But the number of people collecting unemployment has decreased steadily for eight years.  So my guess is that your presumption for why they are leaving is off base.

So you think people are leaving the labor force because they can be better off living on government programs?

[MU82]

tamu-i'm sure you are correct up to a point, but the numbers of people who have altogether stopped looking for work is at all time highs-i understand that we do have many many hard working people who can't afford stuff, but if the market cannot support just giving them more money per hour so they can buy condoms, et.al. houston, we've got a ........

  " ........................ in January 2009, 80,529,000 Americans were not in the labor force, the highest number on record. That number rose steadily during the presidents two terms, reaching a record 95,055,000 in November 2016, then setting another record (95,102,000) in December."

   *note-i am not using this quote for political purposes.  rather, as a reference of a point in time

  i've got to think there are some able bodied people in that 95 + million.  that's a lot of people who have made some bad choices and continue to do so.  they are not counted in the unemployment numbers which nationally, range between 4-5%.

   i just googled condoms-i see many ads for FREE condoms to 12 pak for $3.99.  not sure how much for the harlit      .30 for anywhere from 20 seconds to an afternoon delight ein'er?  that KY stuff is expensive though-gonna have to be innovative-what's a can of cool whip go for

if a certain group of people would allow school choice so there would be some competition to the public versions and give parents an alternative.  it would or should force both the public and the choice schools to better themselves

everyone throws out there "living wage"  what is that?  one's "living wage" may not be the same as anothers.  if you force a McDonalds for example to pay their workers a "living wage", they have to raise their prices accordingly and then the very people we are talking about will not be able to afford them

      *mcdonalds as an example can be any other number of lower priced dining options-burger king, kfc, wendy's, popeye's, long johnny silvers, arby's, carl jr's etc

but back to this "living wage" thing-businesses are no more responsible for paying a random salary to someone so they can "live" than they can dictate what and how they spend that money on,  a business is subject to what the market allows and what he/she deems is worthy.  now they may price themselves out of the market as well, but that is how the game is played.  there are risks involved on both sides.  have you ever tried opening a business?  there are many hurdles and risks involved before you even get to be able to pay your employees a "living wage".  one of the challenges of a business owner is to find GOOD employees.  when ya do, you pay them well or you lose them. 

but back to the original premise of this post-if that 95 + million number is even close-that's a lot of people who aren't working of which man could, but are using the "system" as a lifestyle choice=free time=ruh-roh time
 

I stopped looking for work in 2010 before I turned 50. I, and many like me, skew the stats you cite as they affect impoverished people. It was not a "bad choice" for me because I could afford to be semi-retired (OK ... MOSTLY-retired!) and because I have a wife who works. Stop lumping together everybody who fits every statistic you want to use.

As for school choice, it is being forced down NC taxpayers' throats, as more taxpayer money is being given away to those who go to private (usually religious) schools. Early returns have been, to put it kindly, disappointing.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article135823973.html

Last July, the Thomas Fordham Institute released a study on the effectiveness of vouchers (called Opportunity Scholarships in North Carolina) in educating children in comparison to public schools. This is an organization that says on its website that its Policy Priorities are, “… policies and practices leading to a lively, accessible marketplace of high-quality education options for every young American (including charter schools, magnet schools, voucher programs, and online courses)…” In short, a very pro-voucher organization.

So what did this report say that the Fordham Institute undertook, ostensibly to promote the expansion of vouchers in America? It said that vouchers have failed miserably. That’s right, a pro-voucher group had to put out a report that concluded that vouchers are failing our children. And keep in mind, this isn’t an outlier of empirical studies of vouchers’ effectiveness in educating our children. Two other recent studies (one in Indiana and another in Louisiana) came to the same conclusion.

That was in March. A couple of other studies have come out since then showing more lackluster results - the kids were better off in public schools.

Now, maybe these cases are the exceptions. Time will tell. But obviously voucher programs are not some proven panacea, some golden ticket to success.

As for the cost of condoms, you don't get it. Yes, condoms are relatively cheap. So are other things that poor people should or shouldn't be able to afford. It all adds up. It's not just the $3 or $6 or $9 for condoms ... it's for condoms, plus food, plus a way to communicate in today's society (internet, cellphones, etc), plus clothing, plus shelter, etc.

One of my very best friends works two jobs, one at minimum wage, one slightly higher, just to try to give his family the most basic needs, and yet folks like you want to claim he is somehow gaming the system if he takes any public aid. What about the effen public aid that billionaires take for their ballparks, factories and hedge funds? Worry more about the people who are REALLY moving the dial - the corporate cheats who are stealing millions of dollars from you and me every day!

rocket, every point you make is full of either assumptions or generalizations or both. I won't even go into Jesus' hundreds of pleas to care for "the least of these."

[Eldon]

A living wage is something predetermined. It's not variable to each person.

I would also highly doubt that there are even half as many jobs available as people who aren't working. 40 million job openings right now? That aren't seasonal/temporary/minimum wage? No freaking way

Where did you see that?

The most recent JOLTS report from the BLS shows six million openings (it's April's numbers because of the time lag).

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/jolts.pdf

[Eldon]

You do realize that there are a number of reasons why this might be the case.

**Baby-boomer retirements
**Spouses leaving the workforce to care for a child
**People leaving to go back to school

But the number of people collecting unemployment has decreased steadily for eight years.  So my guess is that your presumption for why they are leaving is off base.

So you think people are leaving the labor force because they can be better off living on government programs?

This hits the nail on the head.

https://www.chicagofed.org/~/media/publications/chicago-fed-letter/2012/cflmarch2012-296-pdf.pdf

This Chicago Fed report, despite being from 2012, is the clearest exposition, IMO, of the decline in the labor-force participation rate.

Here's the abstract (if you click the link it automatically downloads):

The authors conclude that just under half of the post-1999 decline in the U.S. labor force
participation rate, or LFPR (the proportion of the working-age population that is employed
or unemployed and seeking work), can be explained by long-running demographic patterns,
such as the retirement of baby boomers. These patterns are expected to continue, offsetting
LFPR improvements due to economic recovery.

We project LFPR through 2020 and contend that some of these demographic patterns, particularly the ongoing retirement of baby boomers, are likely to accelerate the LFPR decline.

[jesmu84]

Where did you see that?

The most recent JOLTS report from the BLS shows six million openings (it's April's numbers because of the time lag).

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/jolts.pdf

Sorry if my post confused. I was saying that there are NOT 40 million jobs available right now.

[Eldon]

Sorry if my post confused. I was saying that there are NOT 40 million jobs available right now.

No worries, no confusion.  I posted the link to show that you are indeed correct--40 million is a huge number.  I was simply wondering where you saw the 40 million statistic.

[MU82]

This hits the nail on the head.

https://www.chicagofed.org/~/media/publications/chicago-fed-letter/2012/cflmarch2012-296-pdf.pdf

This Chicago Fed report, despite being from 2012, is the clearest exposition, IMO, of the decline in the labor-force participation rate.

Here's the abstract (if you click the link it automatically downloads):

The authors conclude that just under half of the post-1999 decline in the U.S. labor force
participation rate, or LFPR (the proportion of the working-age population that is employed
or unemployed and seeking work), can be explained by long-running demographic patterns,
such as the retirement of baby boomers. These patterns are expected to continue, offsetting
LFPR improvements due to economic recovery.

We project LFPR through 2020 and contend that some of these demographic patterns, particularly the ongoing retirement of baby boomers, are likely to accelerate the LFPR decline.

Careful, Eldon, we are in a post-facts society now, and this is sure to upset the narratives of more than a few.

[mu03eng]

Lot of good content, and I know I'm treading on thin ice by asking this question, but I really do want to understand the logic. It will be oversimplified but bear with me.

Why does it make sense to actively deny means of birth control or the termination of pregnancies for principled reasons (moral, religious, etc principles) but then to deny support economically or socially to children who are the result of being denied access to the means of prevention?

In other words, what principles allow us to say, "abstinence only, etc" and interfering in their lives, but then saying "well you're on your own" when they have a child?

If we are being logically consistent the principle that generates a kid should also serve to support the kid, or the principle prevents the kid but also expects those who have a kid to take care of it......what am I missing?