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

[GGGG]

You are missing the point that with a certain segment of society, any sort of government support is viewed as a freebie that underwrites the moral character of the individual.

Unless of course it is a development tax credit or a tax deduction of some kind.  Then it's a wise investment.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Rocket. That 95 million number isn't poor people who are living off social services. That is the number of Americans, age 16 and up, that aren't working. Included in that number is millions of retirees, millions of high school students, millions of college students, millions of grad students, millions of stay at home parents/trophy husbands/wives, millions or thousands (honestly not sure) of sick/disabled individuals who can't work, millions or thousands (honestly not sure) of full time caretakers, thousands of older adults who are going back to school, and thousands of upper class folks who are living off trust funds and inheritance. I also don't know, but I wonder if the millions of people who are incarcerated are included in this number as well. I'm also not sure but I think people who are completing unpaid internships, volunteer work, or working off the books are also included. I'd have to look closer to be sure. But my guess is the % of the 95 million who are poor people who just decided not to work is very small.

  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%.

This is the part that you don't seem to understand. These people didn't make bad choices to get to poverty. The vast majority of them were born there. The next biggest group were stricken with some sort of mental illness. The third biggest group made the choice to pay for surgeries that they couldn't afford because without them they or someone they loved would have died. Only after these three groups do you start to get to people who fell into poverty because of repeated poor decisions. You are picking at a small % of the population and acting as if it describes the whole lot of them. That's the same as saying all white people are serial killers because a select few of white people are.

Yes, people in poverty do make bad decisions. And those bad decisions help keep them in poverty. But they make bad decisions at the same rate as people in other socioeconomic classes. The difference is that they started behind the eight ball. I don't judge people for being human beings and making mistakes. Especially when they didn't have the same opportunity for education that I did. You have probably made more poor financial decisions (frivolous purchases) than the average poor person simply because you have more income to do so. You just got a massive head start over them because of the situation of your birth. Why should we judge poor people for buying cell phones but not judge you for buying things you don't need just because you were born into a wealthier family? How is that justice? The answer is that we shouldn't judge either of you.

The other sad reality is, even if a poor person is perfect...They go to school. They work multiple jobs. They make no frivolous purchases. They don't have kids....they could still end up in poverty. There is a limited amount that people in poverty can control. They can do everything right but if things outside their control don't go their way....lose their job because the business is bought out, car breaks down, they get sick or injured, a family member gets sick or injured, they lose their job as semi truck driver because they only need one guy sleeping in the back of the automatic truck, or simply no business will hire them because of their background....they will stay in poverty.

I'm not going to get into the choice school debate. I equate it to communism. Great in theory but so far terrible in practice. You ever been to one of DeVos' schools in Michigan? Horror shows, most of them. I got my masters in education from a university in Michigan and got to see and study some of it firsthand. If properly regulated, I could see it working so I won't dismiss them outright but they have a long way to go.

Finally, keep in mind that I have never said that I am for raising the minimum wage. I appreciate the thought behind but unfortunately the practicality of it seems to actual hurt those it helps. I do think that is because the value of an employee is terribly low in this country but we can't force businesses to value their employees more. This conversation for me has been all about your comments on why people are in poverty and what it takes for them to escape it.

[MU82]

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?

You are missing absolutely nothing, mu03eng, but you are running the risk of being labeled a liberal. Which I know you're not.

We go back to one of the all-time great quotes on the subject:

Conservatives believe that from the standpoint of the federal government, life begins at conception and ends at birth.
-- Barney Frank.

It's a snarky, wise-arse comment, but the Republicans prove it true over and over and over again -- most recently just this week with the latest swipe at healthcare reform.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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?

THANK YOU!

I constantly run into this argument and it drives me insane. You're a sinner if you use birth control or get an abortion but I'll be damned if I pay a penny towards helping you raise that kid you didn't want.

To be clear, I absolutely respect the opinions of people who are pro-life, its a moral question that I struggle with daily but I don't want this to turn into an abortion conversation. I just think that at least as much but probably more attention should be turned to the welfare of the child after its born rather than before it is born.

Being anti-birth control on the other hand....I don't get that at all.

[jesmu84]

THANK YOU!

I constantly run into this argument and it drives me insane. You're a sinner if you use birth control or get an abortion but I'll be damned if I pay a penny towards helping you raise that kid you didn't want.

To be clear, I absolutely respect the opinions of people who are pro-life, its a moral question that I struggle with daily but I don't want this to turn into an abortion conversation. I just think that at least as much but probably more attention should be turned to the welfare of the child after its born rather than before it is born.

Being anti-birth control on the other hand....I don't get that at all.

I think it comes down to 2 things. Abortion = murder. Fine. So abortion is never acceptable.

The second part is personal responsibility. If you aren't financially or personally or whatever ready to have a kid, then you shouldn't be in a situation where you could have a kid. If we turn around and help pay/support that kid/family, you're erasing the personal responsibility and no one learns.

That's what I understand, anyway

[mu03eng]

You are missing the point that with a certain segment of society, any sort of government support is viewed as a freebie that underwrites the moral character of the individual.

Unless of course it is a development tax credit or a tax deduction of some kind.  Then it's a wise investment.

Not sure if this was in response to me, but yes agreed that was some of the warped logic I was trying to get at. I have zero issue with having a principled stand, as long as that principle is applied consistently.

[rocket surgeon]

tamu-i do appreciate your input, dialogue and respectful replies.  i don't think however, that we will ever be able to put our finger on all the causes of poverty as it is a multi-faceted issue to say the least.

back to the original topic-i found this situation in maine to be quite interesting-maine restaurant workers are lobbying to prevent the minimum wage law from taking effect.  in other words, they don't want it.

   "I don’t need to be ‘saved,’ and I’ll be damned if small groups of uninformed people are voting on my livelihood,” said Sue Vallenza, a Maine bartender who spoke to the Post. Vallenza further said she’s already seeing less in tips as a result of customers who believe the wage hike had already went into effect."

 http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-maine-minimum-wage-20170628-story.html

[Pakuni]

tamu-i do appreciate your input, dialogue and respectful replies.  i don't think however, that we will ever be able to put our finger on all the causes of poverty as it is a multi-faceted issue to say the least.

back to the original topic-i found this situation in maine to be quite interesting-maine restaurant workers are lobbying to prevent the minimum wage law from taking effect.  in other words, they don't want it.

   "I don’t need to be ‘saved,’ and I’ll be damned if small groups of uninformed people are voting on my livelihood,” said Sue Vallenza, a Maine bartender who spoke to the Post. Vallenza further said she’s already seeing less in tips as a result of customers who believe the wage hike had already went into effect."

 http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-maine-minimum-wage-20170628-story.html

This is an apples to oranges comparison.
The Maine issue pertained only to the minimum wage of restaurant servers, who feared it would reduce their tips, which are their primary source of income.
It's not relevant to fast food workers, custodians, cashiers, CNAs, etc.
 

[rocket surgeon]

This is an apples to oranges comparison.
The Maine issue pertained only to the minimum wage of restaurant servers, who feared it would reduce their tips, which are their primary source of income.
It's not relevant to fast food workers, custodians, cashiers, CNAs, etc.

so you don't believe the minmum wage increase wil have ANY effect on those workers you identify?  yes i realize the bartenders, et.al are seeing their tips being reduced and those that you mention do not rely on or get tips.  but we are talking about customers spending money.  whether it's in the form of a tip or just paying the bill, it's still money. if the restaurant has to raise it's prices because of the involuntary raising of the minimum wages, they just won't go to the restaurant period-once again-boiling the frog

[forgetful]

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.

This is a catch all for all your posts in this thread.  Thank you for all the information and well thought out posts. 

Although I still think most of these "effects of minimum wage increases" studies are still flawed by too many unknown or incompletely understood variables, your information is much appreciated.

[jesmu84]

tamu-i do appreciate your input, dialogue and respectful replies.  i don't think however, that we will ever be able to put our finger on all the causes of poverty as it is a multi-faceted issue to say the least.

back to the original topic-i found this situation in maine to be quite interesting-maine restaurant workers are lobbying to prevent the minimum wage law from taking effect.  in other words, they don't want it.

   "I don’t need to be ‘saved,’ and I’ll be damned if small groups of uninformed people are voting on my livelihood,” said Sue Vallenza, a Maine bartender who spoke to the Post. Vallenza further said she’s already seeing less in tips as a result of customers who believe the wage hike had already went into effect."

 http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-maine-minimum-wage-20170628-story.html

We shouldn't have to tip at all. Tipping shouldn't be expected. And it shouldn't be a necessary part of a server/bartender's pay.

https://youtu.be/q_vivC7c_1k

[MU82]

We shouldn't have to tip at all. Tipping shouldn't be expected. And it shouldn't be a necessary part of a server/bartender's pay.

https://youtu.be/q_vivC7c_1k

Agreed. There are many countries in which tipping is not a thing.

[Jockey]

Rocket. That 95 million number isn't poor people who are living off social services. That is the number of Americans, age 16 and up, that aren't working. Included in that number is millions of retirees, millions of high school students, millions of college students, millions of grad students, millions of stay at home parents/trophy husbands/wives, millions or thousands (honestly not sure) of sick/disabled individuals who can't work, millions or thousands (honestly not sure) of full time caretakers, thousands of older adults who are going back to school, and thousands of upper class folks who are living off trust funds and inheritance. I also don't know, but I wonder if the millions of people who are incarcerated are included in this number as well. I'm also not sure but I think people who are completing unpaid internships, volunteer work, or working off the books are also included. I'd have to look closer to be sure. But my guess is the % of the 95 million who are poor people who just decided not to work is very small.

This is the part that you don't seem to understand. These people didn't make bad choices to get to poverty. The vast majority of them were born there. The next biggest group were stricken with some sort of mental illness. The third biggest group made the choice to pay for surgeries that they couldn't afford because without them they or someone they loved would have died. Only after these three groups do you start to get to people who fell into poverty because of repeated poor decisions. You are picking at a small % of the population and acting as if it describes the whole lot of them. That's the same as saying all white people are serial killers because a select few of white people are.

Yes, people in poverty do make bad decisions. And those bad decisions help keep them in poverty. But they make bad decisions at the same rate as people in other socioeconomic classes. The difference is that they started behind the eight ball. I don't judge people for being human beings and making mistakes. Especially when they didn't have the same opportunity for education that I did. You have probably made more poor financial decisions (frivolous purchases) than the average poor person simply because you have more income to do so. You just got a massive head start over them because of the situation of your birth. Why should we judge poor people for buying cell phones but not judge you for buying things you don't need just because you were born into a wealthier family? How is that justice? The answer is that we shouldn't judge either of you.

The other sad reality is, even if a poor person is perfect...They go to school. They work multiple jobs. They make no frivolous purchases. They don't have kids....they could still end up in poverty. There is a limited amount that people in poverty can control. They can do everything right but if things outside their control don't go their way....lose their job because the business is bought out, car breaks down, they get sick or injured, a family member gets sick or injured, they lose their job as semi truck driver because they only need one guy sleeping in the back of the automatic truck, or simply no business will hire them because of their background....they will stay in poverty.

I'm not going to get into the choice school debate. I equate it to communism. Great in theory but so far terrible in practice. You ever been to one of DeVos' schools in Michigan? Horror shows, most of them. I got my masters in education from a university in Michigan and got to see and study some of it firsthand. If properly regulated, I could see it working so I won't dismiss them outright but they have a long way to go.

Finally, keep in mind that I have never said that I am for raising the minimum wage. I appreciate the thought behind but unfortunately the practicality of it seems to actual hurt those it helps. I do think that is because the value of an employee is terribly low in this country but we can't force businesses to value their employees more. This conversation for me has been all about your comments on why people are in poverty and what it takes for them to escape it.

The Orange Pig stated that unemployment was 42% in this country.

Only the stupid believe this to be true.

[rocket surgeon]

surely you meant 4.2% rather than 42, ey?  must be the preoccupation with #45  i'll say however, if one thinks the unemployment rate is 42%, some remedial civics class would be in order at the very least

wisconsin's is anywhere from 4.0-4.2% as a nation, yes it is, but maybe for a tick up to 4.3%

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy-idUSKBN18T0BT

let's see here, whatever number you believe to be true, it is a far cry better than the previous 8 years where it was whatever the Whitehouse actuaries were instructed to put out

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

surely you meant 4.2% rather than 42, ey?  must be the preoccupation with #45  i'll say however, if one thinks the unemployment rate is 42%, some remedial civics class would be in order at the very least

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/29/511493685/ahead-of-trumps-first-jobs-report-a-look-at-his-remarks-on-the-numbers

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/01/29/donald-trump-wants-to-increase-the-unemployment-rate-by-1-from-4-7-to-5-7/#618d88e96224

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2017/01/23/what_trump_s_spokesman_dodge_a_question_about_the_unemployment_rate.html

[GGGG]

let's see here, whatever number you believe to be true, it is a far cry better than the previous 8 years where it was whatever the Whitehouse actuaries were instructed to put out

The only way you could be more Fox News is if you groped someone in the workplace.

[Jay Bee]

The only way you could be more Fox News is if you groped someone in the workplace.

You must mean he's fair & balanced?

As someone who wrote for a Fox News show, I'm very hurt by such attacks!

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

We've done a good job keeping the political mud slinging to a minimum in this thread. Let's keep it that way.  Back on target fellas.

[B. McBannerson]

I guess no politics is alive and well here.  Verbal attacks, etc.  Like watching Obama call Palin a pig, or Trump calling Mike out for a bloody facelift.  So much positive energy. 

[jesmu84]

I guess no politics is alive and well here.  Verbal attacks, etc.  Like watching Obama call Palin a pig, or Trump calling Mike out for a bloody facelift.  So much positive energy. 

[GGGG]

You must mean he's fair & balanced?

As someone who wrote for a Fox News show, I'm very hurt by such attacks!

I'm sure you can find a safe space somewhere.  My guess is that you should try the Vikings trophy case.  You won't be bothered much.

[mu_hilltopper]

These people didn't make bad choices to get to poverty. The vast majority of them were born there. ...<snip>

Yes, people in poverty do make bad decisions. And those bad decisions help keep them in poverty. But they make bad decisions at the same rate as people in other socioeconomic classes. .. Especially when they didn't have the same opportunity for education that I did. You have probably made more poor financial decisions (frivolous purchases) than the average poor person simply because you have more income to do so. You just got a massive head start over them because of the situation of your birth. Why should we judge poor people for buying cell phones but not judge you for buying things you don't need just because you were born into a wealthier family? How is that justice? The answer is that we shouldn't judge either of you.

The other sad reality is, even if a poor person is perfect...They go to school. They work multiple jobs. They make no frivolous purchases. They don't have kids....they could still end up in poverty. There is a limited amount that people in poverty can control.

Lots of good stuff in that post, but I'll add some comments.

I understand that "These people didn't make bad choices to get to poverty / born there" and "Yes, people in poverty do make bad decisions / help keep them in poverty" are slightly different sentiments, but the distinction is not overwhelming.   The point the right wants to make is that we are all given opportunities to help ourselves.  Public schools can be looked at as the largest anti-poverty investment ever made.  (Yet it's in a shameful state!)

I would suspect the idea that "the poor make bad choices at the same rate as others" does not have great data behind it.  What would be a truer statement is those in poverty have little margin for error in their bad choices, while others do.

I don't conscribe to your theory that no one can be judged, not the poor nor rich.  If you want to make poor choices and eff up your life, as long as you don't impact others with your dumbness, well, that's America for you.  But once you do impact others, bear a new child into the world without means, require assistance from others for food, housing, basic support, or enter the criminal justice system -- all of which the poor and non-poor do alike at different rates --  .. then yes, there's an amount of "judgement" that is natural and part of human nature. 

That may not be the society we want, it's the society we have.

[MU82]

I guess no politics is alive and well here.  Verbal attacks, etc.  Like watching Obama call Palin a pig, or Trump calling Mike out for a bloody facelift.  So much positive energy. 

Except Obama never called Palin a pig, not even close. But nice try!

[MU82]

surely you meant 4.2% rather than 42, ey?

Nope, 42%. That's what the Orange Menace said during a 2015 press conference in which he announced his "tax plan":

"The number isn't reflective. I've seen numbers of 24 percent -- I actually saw a number of 42 percent unemployment. Forty-two percent." He continued, "5.3 percent unemployment -- that is the biggest joke there is in this country. … The unemployment rate is probably 20 percent, but I will tell you, you have some great economists that will tell you it's a 30, 32. And the highest I've heard so far is 42 percent."

He loves the "here's what I heard" method of conveying "facts."

Of course, ever since he became the so-called president and the unemployment numbers continued to be good, he has held them up as signs of him doing a fabulous job!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/03/10/19-times-trump-called-the-jobs-numbers-fake-before-they-made-him-look-good/?utm_term=.0b6ecfa84a8b

[Galway Eagle]

Except Obama never called Palin a pig, not even close. But nice try!

I'm gonna save chicos the trouble. He's gonna post Obamas comment about you can't put lipstick on a pig and say it was calling palin a pig because she referenced the difference between a hockey mom and pitbull being lipstick. He will ignore the fact that that's a fairly common expression to further his point. Then people will get frustrated and the thread will be locked.