Of course I have a huge interest in preventing the causes of poverty.
Studies on hunger and poverty are rather easy to come by on children in the US. If you don't think they exist, you have not been looking at real world data.
I am still waiting as to how exactly you want to reform the "welfare system".
i am game for increasing personal responsibility and encouraging employment for those who can work. , even Boutons can sign on to that.
You have me on your side, I just need to know where we need improvement.
If you would, tell me where we need to get started. I need the names of programs, data on how that money is spent, who it goes to, and what the requirements are for receiving that aid.
We can't fix what you want fixed without that basic information.
most of the people on public assistance who are not disabled or old ARE working, like Junk food, Walmart, retail, restaurant staff.
Raising the FEDERAL minimum wage to $15 or more would move a lot of working poor off public assistance, and stop tax payers from subsidizing their employers.
Raising Minimum Wage Won't Lower Poverty
http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/16/opinio...-minimum-wage/
The U.S. Census Bureau reported this week that more Americans are living in poverty than ever before measured -- 46.2 million people.
This news was followed by a predictable response from advocacy groups like the National Employment Law Project which suggested that an increase in the minimum wage could help lift Americans out of poverty. And not only that; in a CNN.com op-ed, a policy analyst with the group said that an increase in the minimum wage could boost the economy and create 160,000 jobs.
These claims may pass muster as applause lines at a political rally, but they can't pass the test of rigorous empirical research.
The intuitive thinking on raising the minimum wage is straightforward: Raising the lowest wage that employers can pay will boost the paychecks of the lowest-paid workers and help pull them out of poverty. This line of logic persuaded 28 states to raise their minimum wage above the federal level between 2003 and 2007.
Michael SaltsmanBut research published last year in the Southern Economic Journal, a study funded in part by the Employment Policies Ins ute, found no evidence that these state minimum wage increases reduced poverty rates. The authors, from Cornell and American universities, suggested that some wage gains were flowing to higher-income families rather than the intended beneficiaries.
There's an even more important effect to account for: a decrease in employers' demand for the less-skilled and less-experienced. Those employees who receive a minimum wage increase may be better off, but those who lose their job because they're now more expensive to employ are most certainly worse off.
Research from economists David Neumark, Mark Schweitzer and William Wascher found a higher minimum wage results in a net increase in the proportion of families who are poor or near-poverty -- meaning that the "losers" from a minimum wage increase outnumber the "winners."
That's difficult for advocacy groups like NELP to grapple with, so they generally choose to ignore it. Instead, NELP's executive director dismisses basic economic concepts like supply and demand as "simplistic" and "18th century." In the CNN.com op-ed, the group's policy analyst directed readers to a handful of outlying studies -- in particular, a 1994 study on the minimum wage from economists David Card and Alan Krueger. (The latter was recently nominated to chair the President's Council of Economic Advisers).
Card and Krueger purportedly debunked the decades-long economic consensus that raising the minimum wage reduces employment, claiming that a 1992 minimum wage increase in New Jersey raised employment. To this day, the study is still showered with superlatives like "groundbreaking" by well-wishers at NELP.
But missing from that re-telling is the story's ending: Card and Krueger's headline-grabbing finding -- that raising the minimum wage had increased employment -- was discredited by another study that found serious problems with the quality of their data.
Key questions in the data collection process were so ambiguous that Card and Krueger reported some fast-food locations changing from zero full-time employees to 29 in less than a year; others reported a dramatic drop in part-time employees, from 60 people down to 15.
When actual payroll data was analyzed by economists Neumark and Wascher, the results flipped: far from boosting employment, the mandated wage increase in New Jersey had decreased employment -- just as standard economic theory would predict. That the New Jersey study was an outlier has become even more apparent in the years since: 85 percent of the most credible studies on the subject in the past two decades have pointed to job loss following an increase in the minimum wage.
So, where does that leave NELP and other like-minded advocates?
In recent months, they've tried to get traction on the "consumer spending" argument, which goes something like this: Raising the minimum wage will put more money in the pockets of low-income workers, who will then spend that money, drive the recovery, and create jobs.
At least the Krueger and Card findings were backed up by a data set, albeit a flawed one. By contrast, this job creation claim is based on no more than a distorted interpretation of a research paper written by three economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. It also ignores a recently released Employment Policies Ins ute study that shows past increases in the minimum wage have provided no boost to Gross Domestic Product -- and even reduced output in certain industries that employ a high percentage of low-wage employees.
This lack of regard for the evidence demonstrates how the "higher costs means more jobs" mantra has become an article of faith for proponents of a higher minimum wage. To bring down the unemployment rate, businesses need to be willing to grow and invest -- neither of which is likely if we're hampering them with new employment costs. That doesn't mean turning a cold shoulder to the 46.2 million Americans living in poverty. It just means pursuing smarter policies (like an expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit) that are proven to boost incomes and employment without the unintended consequences associated with a minimum wage increase.
After all, working people aren't stuck at the minimum wage -- most earn a raise in their first one to 12 months on the job. But they can't get the raise without experience, and they can't get experience, if they don't have a job.
"working people aren't stuck at the minimum wage -- most earn a raise in their first one to 12 months on the job"
link?
Raising the minimum wage isn't directly about their straw man of job creation. Numerous studies have shown that raising the minimum wage a NO EFFECT on joblessness (but I have no doubt some people lose jobs while other get jobs)
Raising the minimum is about DISQUALIFYING low-wagers from public assistance, aka corporate welfare (which you Kock-suckers love), by giving them more income.
"raising the wage", without being defined, could mean a 10 cent an hour raise, and almost no appreciable increase in money earned.
It wouldn't surprise me to learn that was true, but the term is so broad as to be misleading, if you don't flesh it out. It is an opinion piece, with no compunction to be fair or objective.
I wouldn't read too much into it.
Quite frankly raising the minimum wage really isn't all that effective on the balance, based on what I have read. It is neither as harmful as detractors claim, nor as effective in raising living standards as proponents claim.
What would be better would be for the hyper-wealthy to pay their share of taxes, and use the funds to cut taxes for everybody else.
Simply use the new revenues as block grants to state and local governments. Let them lower the generally regressive property and sales taxes.
I've mentioned several times about raising the min wage to $15 or more, not $0.10, to push living-wage income off the taxpayers onto the employers. I think a LOT more low-wage people out of work would seek work at $15 than $7.25.
cutting taxes on the 99% won't create jobs.
Roll back all income, estate, and capital gains taxes back to 1975.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 11-21-2013 at 03:33 PM.
I agree with you in some respects. We have to provide food and shelter for the homeless, and oppose racial discrimination and promote civil rights--while also promoting equal rights for women. We have to encourage a return to traditional moral values. Most importantly, we have to promote general social concern and less materialism in young people.
And where does this money come from? And what about those making $15, are their wages increased too?
The money comes from the employers, stupid, just like all wages.
People making $15 aren't the problem we need to solve, are they?
And you expect employers will to offer their goods/services at the same price after they are forced to double their employees pay? The people currently making $15 an hour will be a problem as they will demand and deserve to make more than the $15 an hour McDonald's worker, stupid.
so what if junk food gets more expensive, by a few pennies.
so you policy is for taxpayers to keep paying public assistance to the working poor?
Do you really think only fast food workers make minimum wage?
That doesn't answer my question. Do you think fast food workers are the only one's making minimum wage?
of course not.
retail staff, table wait staff, short order cooks, check out clerks, junk food staff, etc, etc.
btw, let's stop exempting table waiters from federal minimum wage. They should get $15/hour, too. They do their jobs, but there's a lot of vindictive, nasty assholes who love the power of NOT tipping.
So boutons is a waiter, eh?
I'd much rather the system Australia has with table waiters where they all make $20 an hour with a menu 15-20% more expensive but you don't leave a tip. I can't stand a waiter/waitress coming by every 2 minutes asking how good the food is because they're worried about their tip. Don't really blame them tho since the tip is basically their entire salary.
i'd much rather the system nazi germany had where all servers were white and they didn't pay interest to central banks
Wow...imagine that. The family of Walmart makes more money than an associate. Shocking.
Not.
Instead of posting some insipid meme cribbed from your rss feed, try to make a lucid point. Bonus points if you can eschew your asinine talking points and speak like an adult.
whoa! The Great Boutons has really pissed off and embarrassed TB
Psst...Im not embarrased or pissed off. And you cant even sniff greatness.
http://www.realclear.com/us/2014/01/...cans_5372.htmlIn a first, working-age people now make up the majority in U.S. households that rely on food stamps - a switch from a few years ago, when children and the elderly were the main recipients.
Some of the change is due to demographics, such as the trend toward having fewer children. But a slow economic recovery with high unemployment, stagnant wages and an increasing gulf between low-wage and high-skill jobs also plays a big role. It suggests that government spending on the $80 billion-a-year food stamp program — twice what it cost five years ago — may not subside significantly anytime soon.
Food stamp participation since 1980 has grown the fastest among workers with some college training, a sign that the safety net has stretched further to cover America's former middle class, according to an analysis of government data for The Associated Press by economists at the University of Kentucky. Formally called Supplemental Nutrition Assistance, or SNAP, the program now covers 1 in 7 Americans.
TB STILL trashing talke an Internet protocol
For those of us that connect the dots, the excessive investor/mgmt compensation comes at the cost of suppressed employee wages and benefits.
Walmart's store/warehoue salaries topped up by taxpayers subsidizing Walmart with public assistance to Walmart employees.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
