Reply With Quote
It doesn't cost a dime in gov spending to pass a min wage law.
Looking at the tables, reveals 1.9 million 16-24 working at or below min wage.
Total min wage workers: 3.8 million. That's 50% @ 16-24. Of that 16-24 set, the 16-19 bracket is about 50%. So, the 16-19 is roughly 25% overall. Factor in the 20's to that and you might pop an additional point or two to the total.
I guess if you take the legal definition of adults as >21, then truthout is close but placed within a narrative of parents, which truthout deftly accomplished, it's completely misleading.
It doesn't cost a dime in gov spending to pass a min wage law.
That's pretty much true. Government contracts are all under Davis Bacon and contractors have to figure paying stupid money (much more than prevailing local wages) for labor.
mmmmmm...bacon
"contractors have to figure paying stupid money (much more than prevailing local wages) for labor."
CC. Warrior on Employees, loves ing over laborers
smh
Boutons the forum moron as usual.
I know, didn't meant to imply otherwise.
We need more social services to allow poorer kids to get the kinds of enrichment that tends to make rich kids so much more compe ive, or at least not burden kids with the drawbacks of poverty. Either way will cost money, but be worth it in the long run.
Economically better off = fewer kids
If one hates the "welfare state", you need more of it in the short run so you need less of it in the long run. That is one of those seeming contradictions that simple-minded types have a hard time wrapping their heads around.
Adults is 18 or up. The general legal defintion for contracts and voting. You can legally form a contract at 18, and that is the general age of majority.
Go back and re-check your figures, then the study that truthout is quoting is a lot closer to what hte BLS implies.
Further, TO, says "many" are parents, which again, is not misleading. They didn't say "most". Again not an unfair statement to make, especially if your entire point is that raising minimum wage will help some children and their parents that probably need extra income the most.
Offsettign this though, is the economic reality taht raisign the minimum wage would tend to reduce hiring of the very people you are tyring to help.
The kicker is by how much? More money to poor people = more velocity of money, and would that offset the economic drag.
Best data I have seen is "not really much at all".
The benefits are overall clearer than the costs, to me.
I would not mind a substantial hike over several years to see how it pans out, with some very careful studies of the effects.
When low paid employees, eg Walmart, retail, food service use public assistance, it is taxpayers subsidizing the employers' profits.
here's another way taxpayers subsidize mega-corps, eg, BigAg:
Agribusiness subsidies: lining whose pockets?
People everywhere are stepping up to the plate to force food and agriculture policies to serve us, not multinational corporations. Before looking at some advances and victories, let’s explore ways in which government support has shifted from farmers to some of the world’s biggest corporations.
The government used to set price floors for certain commodity crops, nonperishable staples like corn, wheat, rice, and cotton. The price floors acted as a minimum wage for farmers, regulating the lowest amount they could be paid for their products. Another government program, maintaining grain reserves, allowed farmers to store some grain crops in seasons when they overproduced. This meant that the reserves could be released into the market in less abundant future seasons. The regulation of extra grain helped prevent food shortages and price es.
But agribusinesses wanted to buy commodity crops, from which they make processed food products, as cheaply as possible. So they pressured legislators to end price-regulating policies. And they responded. In the 1970s, price floors and grain reserves were gradually eroded; by 1996, they were eliminated completely. Farmers had to lower their prices in response, to attract more customers, and to boost production to compensate for lost income.
To respond to the downward spiral of prices and keep farmers from going under, the government ramped up the subsidy system. Subsidies, which began in the 1930s during the Great Depression, use taxpayer money to give commodity farmers direct payments, tax breaks, subsidized insurance, and other financial support. These government payments make it possible for farms to continue selling their products cheaply without going out of business.
However, the real winners in the subsidy system are the corporations who are able to buy commodity crops from farmers for artificially low prices, yielding them even higher profits. Taxpayers foot the bill, underwriting billions in annual profits for agricultural corporations.
The mix of subsidies, together with the elimination of policies that protect farmers, has created such a skewed equation that some commodity crops are sold for even less money than it costs to grow them. This practice, called “dumping,” enables corporations to undercut farmers around the world. Between 2000 and 2003, for example, while the cost of producing rice was approximately $415 per ton, government subsidies allowed agribusiness companies to sell it overseas for just $275 per ton.
The whole system is kept in place by close-knit relationships between corporations and government. Corporations tempt legislators with campaign contributions, votes, and investment in their districts. In return, members of Congress give out subsidies to agribusiness and pass legislation that opens markets in their favor. A revolving door spins government officials into corporate positions and then back again.
The answer is not to throw out government subsidies. Eliminating this support system, without changing the underlying conditions that make commodity farms dependent on it, will not benefit farmers. And some subsidies, like grants for sustainable agriculture and tax credits for renewable energy conversions, can benefit small farmers.
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/15...tural-policies
I haven't seen the data where a minimum wage increase increase wage participation. If someone has that I would like to see it. As far as labor, the divide between the haves and have not continues to grow and it's simply from a lack of education, and I don't mean traditional schooling. As a society we are in a television trance that we need to snap out of. We need to start at the basics and work our way up. Here's an outline of what should be done.
1. Focus on educating the masses on the value of nutrition. The burden on our health care system and lost productivity at work can be directly attributed to the bad decisions most make in the kitchen. Liberals trying to dictate isn't the answer, but a huge public service campaign on the ill effects of refined sugars and processed foods is a huge start. We would save trillions if we would just lose some weight (68% of Americans are obese or overweight)
2. Start a "Redemption" campaign for people with criminal records. For instance, I know a very intelligent college educated person who was arrested for stealing goggles when he was 17. He is now in his 30s and is still ineligible for state licensing in certain fields. In his case it was a Mortgage Broker's license. How does lifetime employment discrimination make moral sense, especially since many minorities are raised in tough situations and make bad decisions when they are younger? However, I think everyone is en led to a second chance. When it comes to employment, it's one strike and you're out in many cases. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTCRRFGr-IA
3. We need a Small Business Revival. 80% of new jobs are created in small to mid-size businesses. We need more! I'm open to whatever ideas on this front.
4. A basic college education should not cost more than $10,000. Universities need to make this happen.
just my 2cents
Get ing real Boutons!
Have you priced corn, soy beans, or wheat lately? Obviously not.
You realize we spend more than that per student per YEAR for K-12 education, right?
I'm not quite sure how social services are going to deliver motivated, involved parents who talk to their kids and provide them experiences other than television.
If we're thinking out of the box, could we do something like a New Janissary Corps? That was proven to work for a few hundred years when the Turks tried it, at least until corruption and nepotism ruined it. One change I would make this time around is to eliminate the pederasty.
I think the business community generally follows you on this. I don't think there's alot of pushback from them on a living wage package, unless it's something like $18-20/hr.The incremental increase in cost is easily absorbed or passed on to the consumer. I'm not sure it would repress hiring, but it could with some of the smaller outfits perhaps. I agree with the cost:benefit.
Australia's minimum wage is $15.00 an hour and their unemployment rate is around 5%. No idea what their labor participation rate is, but I'd bet it's much higher than the participation rate here.
CC there are universities that have 10k programs now
Are they correlated?
No, the lack of a living wage is a symptom. Not the root problem.
Is McDonalds suppose to be a living wage?
What are their free trade agreements and import tariffs like?
Seeing a so called libertarian campaign against free trade an for tariffs is pretty hilarious. I thought if you let the free market dictate everything that's when things do best?
It isn't free trade when the table isn't level.
Explain why the free trade table isn't level.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
