Billy: Considering I can't walk or travel most days - in addition to the muscle weakness and fatigue (latter from meds to help with other issues) and absent seizures - and there's another 10 or so issues that crop up in a given week there's a pretty limited range I could do even though I'd love to work again. So basically unless you're talking about literally kicking everyone off to encourage a handful of us (while doubltalking to say you support some disabilities - protip: mine is considered a 9 on the disability impairment scale, which maxes at 10 - Downs is a 7 in comparison, terminal cancers are 8-9) to work. Hell, a lost leg is only a 6 even.)
You completely missed the point. My response was to your own suggestion of you wanting to work, not mine. My qualm was directed more at your "$15/hr" base it would require to replicate your current standard of living to justify working and coming off disability. If you need disability, you need disability.
And without my inherited wealth losing my "entitlement" would result in my death from starvation and exposure within months - I'm lucky to have a second safety net most don't.
Again, if you truly need disability, you need disability. You speak of double talk but your the one who says you could/want to work....given the right circumstances one of which being pay.
I look for appropriate work constantly for SEVEN years now for at least 4-5 hrs a week - gotten two interviews for ones that could've worked to date, and guess what - these disability friendly jobs had thousands of applicants each the great majority of which wanted the cushy job circumstances rather than NEEDING THEM to be a productive citizen.
So? The want is what drives us as humans.
Actually I bet most without a second safety net and inability to work would resort to crime - which costs society more, especially once eventually imprisoned. (Average entitlement is in the 5-10% range of prison costs in a matching area) My health makes crime impossible for me but plenty of other entitlement folks would have no issue.
I disagree with this. There are plenty of people on food stamps who do not steal or resort to crime, nor did they before they were on food stamps.
Hell, the average citizen pays $1 a day to entitlements (rounded up iirc it was 93c) - would you pay $1 to not have to deal with poor clogging the streets in hoovervilles, pickpockets, muggings, thefts, etc etc all of which dropped about 90% once entitlements started.
You can talk about entitlements fixing crime, I do not believe it. While I think there might be a correlation, I'm not sure you could make a convincing argument that it is for certain.
To me that $1 a day (which I still pay thanks to my taxes on my trust and property taxes) is well worth it I've been to the bad parts of India before that are similar to the Hooverville era over here - and I was mortified - I'd personally spend ten times that if the issue got forced, its that repulsive.
This is such a bogus comparison. There are significant degrees of separation between India and the US. It always one extreme or the other, seems there is no interest in moderation. However, considering you've seen India you should know our poor live pretty damn good and if you've seen Afghanistan or Iraq you understand even more......not to mention...the Kosovo and Albania since were siting personal observations.
I do not see a valid reason why our poor can not tighten their belts just like the rest of us should. I'm not advocating a complete removal of entitlements but some cuts are warranted. Further, increasing the minimum wage does nothing but increase the dependence of poor people on the government. If poor people keep getting hand outs that purportedly enhance their standard of living, how does that teach them to strive for more. And before you start on my supposed anti-lazy stance....its has nothing to do with laziness....at least not in a derogatory way.
The more incentive you give people to not strive for more......i.e. making it easier to be poor......the less they will strive for more.
On topic...I still do not understand how raising the minimum wage makes them less poor.....they will still be at the bottom.....and their will be people who will continue to argue we need to do more for them. I'm all for helping people...to a certain extent...
The theiry is if you pay them more they will be closer to the middle wage area since everyone else does not go up in compairson. Example if min wage goes up by $1 an hour you who already work for 25 will not get that extra 1$ an hour but they will putting them closer to you, While some items will increase in price becuase of this, not all will, slowly it creates an equilbrum towards balance.
The theiry is if you pay them more they will be closer to the middle wage area since everyone else does not go up in compairson. Example if min wage goes up by $1 an hour you who already work for 25 will not get that extra 1$ an hour but they will putting them closer to you, While some items will increase in price becuase of this, not all will, slowly it creates an equilbrum towards balance.
Meanwhile you screw the people who earned their raises while forcing them to pay higher cost.....
You completely missed the point. My response was to your own suggestion of you wanting to work, not mine. My qualm was directed more at your "$15/hr" base it would require to replicate your current standard of living to justify working and coming off disability. If you need disability, you need disability.
You're missing the crux of the problem - why should I risk shooting myself in the foot by forsaking disability to better myself and put myself in a worse position in the end?
There's no logic in that - my desire to work is tempered by reason that shows without earnings in that ballpark I'll actually LOSE money by trying to work - and if I try and fail, that loss will take TWO YEARS or longer before I recover my losses. (Besides Medicare, that would come back almost immediately - and Medicare's replacement costs are part of that calculation)
So I could gamble on something making $12/hr and fail (or get fired due to work limitations) and be thousands of dollars a month behind where I am now - or maybe not even see the raises needed to fill the gap for years. (Quite likely without promotion in fact as someone who gave raises for his company)
Especially when I don't know the future prognosis for my health - since even the John's Hopkins neurology expert on the aspect of my genetics that is a problem gave me a big "I dunno" explanation when I tried to ask about my expected progression. (Besides the one specific which I already suffer from that I won't detail because it's embarassing, and the same reason he didn't know to not bother detailing it to me - my GP's know however)
Again, if you truly need disability, you need disability. You speak of double talk but your the one who says you could/want to work....given the right circumstances one of which being pay.
Pay is important - would you take a less secure job for lesser pay? In my hiring I only saw it rarely, and only when there was a very aggressive work environment - which is completely alien to disability.
So? The want is what drives us as humans.
Right - because a job that actually advertises as explicitly "Disability Friendly" should be something that normals are lining up for. You think disabled people should work, but at the same time you think the limited number of jobs that actually are disability appropriate should be FFA.
The logic disconnect is astounding.
Heck, there's not even hiring benefits for most disability cases - with the exception of Blindness and Deafness. (And I think Down's type mental development disorders as well - although I don't have first hand experience with those hiring benefits, since my work wasn't on the approved list for mental handicap hiring benefits since it would've been dangerous to them and/or customers)
If you can only work in a fraction of the available jobs - and you're expected to have more sickdays than normal - and those jobs are more desired by "normals" than most... What do you honestly think the odds are of getting a job over other candidates?
Hell, even Stephen Hawking himself as a certified genius and one of the smartest men on the planet has stated that had his condition manifested BEFORE he got a chance to prove himself he likely would've been stuck on benefits programs his entire life. If a man of his caliber doubts the ability to prove themself to get a job to offset the issues of disability (even if his disability is more extreme than most) - how much luck should us less bright folks expect?
The only logical thing that occurs with disability to help the majority get off of disability is there's programs that offer more reasonable business loans to disabled folk - but running a business isn't for everyone, especially alone. (In my case, the wife has no desire to work in any business I would)
If I do my Orlando move that I'm considering I likely will try a business down there if it looks like my idea can fit the area once I've been down there a bit - the cost to establishing a business is doable in Orlando from my research, around here I'd have to pony up basically my entire portfolio in addition to the loans assuming I don't want to remortgage my paid off house. (Which I don't want to do) In Orlando, I'd barely need to go into it at all, in fact, might even be able to do it on loans alone - since from what I'm gathering of Florida Business loans you can stack normal with the disability loans there, can't here.
I disagree with this. There are plenty of people on food stamps who do not steal or resort to crime, nor did they before they were on food stamps.
Since it's been an option, sure - look at petty crime in 1900 versus 1950 sometime. Petty Crime was a constant concern in the early 20th century before welfare programs started - once they were in place it's almost unheard of outside of the 12-16 age bracket.
Bad article - they ignore the fact of the Hoovervilles providing support structure (in an ugly fashion - they made the OWS campouts look teensy in comparison) for the first time and only count crimes with reports, which most petty crime was only reported via a policeman's log.
You can talk about entitlements fixing crime, I do not believe it. While I think there might be a correlation, I'm not sure you could make a convincing argument that it is for certain.
You're not sure or you're certain? Another logical crux in a singular statement.
And they didn't "fix crime" they reduced petty theft from levels where they were responsible for 2-3% GDP loss in the early 20th century to numbers too low to publish by the 1950's.
Additionally it's easily demonstratable in business insurance where Petty Theft became a common add-on in the 1920's when it was introduced, but by the 1950's became almost unheard of outside of bodegas and convenience stores - to the 1990's where the insurance companies finally did off with it entirely to simplify things. [And also to raise rates on those same insured bodegas and convenience stores indirectly - most don't carry insurance anymore because of it]
This is such a bogus comparison. There are significant degrees of separation between India and the US. It always one extreme or the other, seems there is no interest in moderation. However, considering you've seen India you should know our poor live pretty damn good and if you've seen Afghanistan or Iraq you understand even more......not to mention...the Kosovo and Albania since were siting personal observations.
You talk about gutting our programs to the point where they'd start to be indistinguishable. Most people in the US on entitlements see about $10-15 in benefits a day. Average beggar in India receives the equivalent to $5-7 a day, and with their COL being drastically less they might already be ahead.
On topic...I still do not understand how raising the minimum wage makes them less poor.....they will still be at the bottom.....and their will be people who will continue to argue we need to do more for them. I'm all for helping people...to a certain extent...
No, you're clearly not - because you don't seem to understand that very few people are going to take the leap between "entitlements" and work if work pays them less.
And you think a sane, rational way to encourage them to work is instead of making sure any job should easily exceed entitlements is to reduce entitlements to the point where they're completely impossible to live on healthily. (Which of course, being unhealthy then makes them REALLY good workers)
I worked in hiring people all the time, even in the most extreme cases where someone loathed their current work or other situation people didn't want to see a dip in their income more than maybe $100 a month in the "working class" tiers. (Executive tiers are different, but then again, you're way over the hump at that point)
And the primary problem with entitlements as they exist today is the penalties that occur to said entitlements IMMEDIATELY upon working and then can't return for quite a while afterwards - meaning if they try to work and the job doesn't work out, say they get unlucky and the business goes under... say they do something accidental that gets them fired... say they're stupid and handle cash improperly.... or whatever else. Suddenly not only are they down the money from the job, but their "entitlements" are now stunted (or more often REMOVED) for 12-36 months.
Can you live without any income for 1-3 years? Do you see the Catch-22 that is created by such policies?
What we should do is keep things where they are and INCENTIVIZE people to work their way off the programs.
Your idea is akin to telling employees they're all going to be fired if X isn't accomplished - which is a piss poor way to get results - the way to almost always achieve said goals is to put a carrot in the form of a bonus on accomplishing X. (Either as an individual or a whole - only individual makes sense for entitlements)
Give people a reason to better themselves and they will, beat them down and they'll just give up and mire. And the systems have already been set up on the beatdown formula and are continuing to prove worse and worse - logic says you don't just start working on more extreme versions of the same and expect a different result, logic states that's the definition of insanity in fact.
Meanwhile you screw the people who earned their raises while forcing them to pay higher cost.....
The same goes in reverse too you do realize, right? When the top earners get bonus after bonus, costs raise on everyone as well - you make a compelling argument for no raises being allowed ever. But I don't think anyone would agree with that lunacy.
Really that statement of yours just reads like you're pissy because you're earning at or slightly above the suggested minimum wages and find it abhorrent that you'd be considered minimum wage and have to pay a fraction more than you do now for the same things you get.
You talk about gutting our programs to the point where they'd start to be indistinguishable. Most people in the US on entitlements see about $10-15 in benefits a day. Average beggar in India receives the equivalent to $5-7 a day, and with their COL being drastically less they might already be ahead.
.[/QUOTE]
Can I get a source for this? I was under the impression that these people made like 1$ a DAY for working, why work if you can comparable funds to begging?
$1 in US wages is a lowball for India - average wage over there is $0.50/hr or so now ($0.40/hr in 2009 when I last see the figure in an easy format) with 10 hr days being common. So $5/day is the average working wage in USD.
When I was referring to the beggar earnings I may have highballed a little though - I do see a 200 rupee a day quote (roughly $4) as a consistency for him - but he very well might be an outlier. (Although some old Mother Theresa quotes adjusted for time do fall in a similar range - but that was a long time ago and well before they really boomed as an outsourcing territory)
Not to mention the entire familial pride that occurs in Indian culture - there's a reason why the poor class is largely referred to as "untouchables" - they're largely frowned on as a point of culture.
You're missing the crux of the problem - why should I risk shooting myself in the foot by forsaking disability to better myself and put myself in a worse position in the end?
There's no logic in that - my desire to work is tempered by reason that shows without earnings in that ballpark I'll actually LOSE money by trying to work - and if I try and fail, that loss will take TWO YEARS or longer before I recover my losses. (Besides Medicare, that would come back almost immediately - and Medicare's replacement costs are part of that calculation)
So I could gamble on something making $12/hr and fail (or get fired due to work limitations) and be thousands of dollars a month behind where I am now - or maybe not even see the raises needed to fill the gap for years. (Quite likely without promotion in fact as someone who gave raises for his company)
No, we just disagree with what the crux of the problem is. IF you wanted to work, I have no issue with you refusing to do so if it means a lesser quality of life given you current benefit/entitlement. There is no reason for you to do so. To me, that is the problem. The government is essentially forcing you to depend on them. If your entitlement was somewhat less, working would be more competitive. You feel you are entitled to $15/hr. I feel, that level of entitlement is a determent to you working....whether you want to work or not.
You talk about gutting our programs to the point where they'd start to be indistinguishable. Most people in the US on entitlements see about $10-15 in benefits a day. Average beggar in India receives the equivalent to $5-7 a day, and with their COL being drastically less they might already be ahead.
No…you are the one making suppositions concerning to the degree I would “gut” programs. In, fact I’ve never stated to what I degree they need cutting, just that they needed cutting.
No, you're clearly not - because you don't seem to understand that very few people are going to take the leap between "entitlements" and work if work pays them less.
Again, we disagree on how to make it a little less practical to depend on government than work. Pay them a little less entitlements and the incentive to work will increase without increasing cost for a company owner and its customers.
And you think a sane, rational way to encourage them to work is instead of making sure any job should easily exceed entitlements is to reduce entitlements to the point where they're completely impossible to live on healthily. (Which of course, being unhealthy then makes them REALLY good workers)
No, you continue to sensationalize to the degree cuts should be made and the impact they should have. Once again, I’ve never stated to the degree cuts should be made except that current entitlements should not be a disincentive people from working.
I mean, I’m getting by on minimum wage and have for about a year. This will not for much longer as I’ve recently secured job that pays almost double that but less than the $15/hr estimate you get….I know for certain 14.50/hr I’m getting from my new job is more than enough to have decent life. Say your entitlement gets cut to $14.50….that at least makes the job market slightly more competitive. You on the other hand think, it’s up to the government to force the employer to compete with your disability check.
When the top earners get bonus after bonus, costs raise on everyone as well - you make a compelling argument for no raises being allowed ever. But I don't think anyone would agree with that lunacy.
This idea that someone who’s been successful and being rewarded is screwing someone is non-sense. The fact you compare that to a new hire who has done nothing and gets a raise is lunacy.
Really that statement of yours just reads like you're pissy because you're earning at or slightly above the suggested minimum wages and find it abhorrent that you'd be considered minimum wage and have to pay a fraction more than you do now for the same things you get.
No, I’d be pissy because someone who has not done anything was just entitled to a raise that I earned meaning my work and efforts was essentially wasted. You see no difference between entitlements and earning something….I do. In other words, because someone earned something does not mean the other guy who did not should be entitled to the same thing.
Big mistake is thinking that there are jobs for everyone who needs one.
Here in Oregon, if we didn't have people pump our gas for us, there's another 50,000 on the unemployment line.
Yes, we should push people to get working, but you have to be blind to our current economic situation if you think there's just jobs waiting to be filled. There just isn't.
It's a buyers market for workers, the employers have all the power right now. I see people with 4 year degrees going unemployed for months at a time because the market for workers is flooded with people with 4 year degrees who need jobs.
Job growth is as stagnant as it's ever been.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Big mistake is thinking that there are jobs for everyone who needs one.
Here in Oregon, if we didn't have people pump our gas for us, there's another 50,000 on the unemployment line.
Yes, we should push people to get working, but you have to be blind to our current economic situation if you think there's just jobs waiting to be filled. There just isn't.
^^^
I got laid off in a disastrous company collapse last year. I've got a set of skills that are highly valued in my industry and pretty rare, extreme thumbs up recommendations from everyone I worked for at my previous company, and it still took me nearly 10 months to find work again, because the market flooded with game designers in the industry semi-collapse (really, two different bubbles bursting - because game industry executives are largely pretty worthless, and they actually bought the MMO hype after WoW and bought the social/casual hype after Farmville, core gaming is doing fine still) last year. Anyone who thinks that all it takes to get a job is some willpower in this climate hasn't had to look recently.
Pay them a little less entitlements and the incentive to work will increase
How about we force the employers to pay them a living wage and they'll have no need for earn benefits. Why does this idea never occur to conservatives? If people make more they won't need assistance, and they'll have a better motivator to work harder, not just longer (and they'll be able to, like, buy stuff and contribute to the economy).
The idea that we need to give poor people less to motivate them is insane. Right now the US Tax payers and giving BILLIONs extra every year so corporations can pay people less. Essentially, we are giving away money to people that are already disgustingly rich by allowing them to pay people such a small wages (80% of the Wal-Mart workforce qualifies for assistance, which comes out of OUR taxes, let’s have Wal-Mart pay for the food their employees eat for once).
Tired of supporting other people? Tell the plutocrats to stop being cheap with their labor force and people wouldn't need paid benefits.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
Pay them a little less entitlements and the incentive to work will increase
How about we force the employers to pay them a living wage and they'll have no need for earn benefits. Why does this idea never occur to conservatives? If people make more they won't need assistance, and they'll have a better motivator to work harder, not just longer (and they'll be able to, like, buy stuff and contribute to the economy).
The idea that we need to give poor people less to motivate them is insane. Right now the US Tax payers and giving BILLIONs extra every year so corporations can pay people less. Essentially, we are giving away money to people that are already disgustingly rich by allowing them to pay people such a small wages (80% of the Wal-Mart workforce qualifies for assistance, which comes out of OUR taxes, let’s have Wal-Mart pay for the food their employees eat for once).
Tired of supporting other people? Tell the plutocrats to stop being cheap with their labor force and people wouldn't need paid benefits.
Cool idea but Wal-Mart's margins blow. The reason they are profitable is because of the massive amount of stuff they sell. If it costs just a little bit more to sell each of those items they no longer make any money and go out of business.
The reason that the government gives billions of dollars to corporations is because if they dont those corporations would go somewhere else taking their jobs and tax revenue with them. The government isnt just handing out money because they have extra laying around.
Cool idea but Wal-Mart's margins blow. The reason they are profitable is because of the massive amount of stuff they sell. If it costs just a little bit more to sell each of those items they no longer make any money and go out of business.
Do you have a financial analysis of some kind to make this claim that they would be going out of business? Costco also makes profit by selling in quantity and somehow manages to pay an average salary of more than twice that of Wal-Mart. If you want to claim that increasing wages would put them out of business (in the face of making billions in profit), you need to back that up.
But let’s say for a second that Wal-Marts business model is so fickle that paying a living wage would put them out of business: do you think it's reasonable that the US Tax payers be responsible for paying the bills of Wal-Wart employees so while the company turns billions in profits? This is corporate welfare at its finest.
As has been said, paying a low wage is a decision, not a necessity for business models.
The reason that the government gives billions of dollars to corporations is because if they dont those corporations would go somewhere else taking their jobs and tax revenue with them. The government isnt just handing out money because they have extra laying around.
Like this wasn't happening before? Companies are already encouraged to take business overseas as much as possible because the US tax code is borked. But Wal-Mart isn't leaving the US. If they increase their wages they're still be turning a profit (A huge one at that), and people like me would stop boycotting them.
How do you justify the claim that a company who made 17 billion last year is in need of Government subsidies? If you're a proponent of decreasing the national cost of earned benefits, it seems like you would be in favor of measures to help make people working full time become less reliant on such services.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
To me that $1 a day (which I still pay thanks to my taxes on my trust and property taxes) is well worth it I've been to the bad parts of India before that are similar to the Hooverville era over here - and I was mortified - I'd personally spend ten times that if the issue got forced, its that repulsive.
This is such a bogus comparison. There are significant degrees of separation between India and the US. It always one extreme or the other, seems there is no interest in moderation. However, considering you've seen India you should know our poor live pretty damn good and if you've seen Afghanistan or Iraq you understand even more......not to mention...the Kosovo and Albania since were siting personal observations.
Actually India is a VERY valid comparison. Urban areas in India look a lot like urban areas in the US around the beginning of the 20th century. Get "How the other Half Lives" and look at the pictures.
The circumstances are very similar: rapid urbanization, increased real wealth, low regulation, massive population concentration.
The only reason I favor the lower brackets to pay a bit more taxes (belt tightening as you say) is because they currently have little skin in the game when it comes to voting for amenities. Would they cough up another 10% of their checks to healthcare?
Heck you don't even have to cut the marginal rates, just cut the refundable tax credits. The EIC, Child Credit (& especially extended child credit) can go along with some fake middle class deductions (like home mortgage interest) that really help the upper class more. Level out capital gains taxes to make them closer to marginal income rates and you could fix a crap load of budget problems and get everyone playing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
Fluffy: You clearly aren't familiar with WalMart if you think their margins are low - 80% of their sales are clothing related. Which average a 120-200% margin depending on the brand. Yes, other stuff is low margin, but they're a fraction of their sales.
Billy: I don't get anywhere near $2400 ($15/h full time) in actualized benefits - I get close to half of that pure dollarwise in line with fulltime at min wage or so. But SS is untaxed and my insurance contribution is limited to $180/mo - average employee contribution is between $300-400/mo currently. Then you add travel costs of $200/mo.... (in line with a 30m commute - shorter than any in my job history mind you....)
Brute forcing via pure dollars is far less efficient for me. Since as you can see I'd have to make a ton more than my benefit amount (that note as PURE SS is "paid for" from my working years) in order to get the same standard of living as my "free minimum wage pay". (And note I'll have to live past 70 unlikely with my health - to actually have taken more from SS than I paid in...)
And I didn't even touch on lost free time or anything - since that's not empyrical.
And on cutting benefits - when the average person is getting $10-15/day in benefits and rent even in cheap areas is over $600/mo do you notice a small problem there? And sure there's Section 8 for those types - but Section 8 waiting lists in many counties are exceeding 7 years these days. (Average wait nationwide is 3 years)
I don't know much about the impacts of raising minimum wage. But I have always wondered why the government doesnt take steps to make our currency worth more.
If I make $5 an hour, but its worth 10-20 euros, I can buy more with my money.
That's not how money works due to economies of scale - local prices are impacted by currency value changes at pretty much 1:1. This is further reinforced by tariffs and other import taxes which provide a ton of revenue while keeping prices footed against local products relatively equally. (Although increasing import fees could encourage more US production and more tax revenue... I'd not been thinking about that too much recently)
How about we force the employers to pay them a living wage and they'll have no need for earn benefits.
Because the idea of a "living wage" is subjective....what you deem a living wage and what I deem a living wage are entirely different I bet. The only thing government should do give the opportunity to earn a living wage...not dictate it. You want to send people to school or get training, I'll all for it....
Why does this idea never occur to conservatives? If people make more they won't need assistance, and they'll have a better motivator to work harder, not just longer (and they'll be able to, like, buy stuff and contribute to the economy).
How come it never occurs to liberals that the incentive the private sector has to compete against the entitlements is too high.....hell....most liberals will not accept a single cent being stripped of entitlements...
The idea that we need to give poor people less to motivate them is insane.
The goal is not to "motivate" them.....its to provide incentive. The simple reality is.....if people can not work and earn the same living....whats the point of working? I don't blame them. I was one of them.
Right now the US Tax payers and giving BILLIONs extra every year so corporations can pay people less. Essentially, we are giving away money to people that are already disgustingly rich by allowing them to pay people such a small wages (80% of the Wal-Mart workforce qualifies for assistance, which comes out of OUR taxes, let’s have Wal-Mart pay for the food their employees eat for once).
Yet, Wal-Mart provides the cheapest food of anyone...oh....and btw...they are the single largest private employer of US citizens. Besides that...nothing is stopping those employees from getting student loans and going to school while working to improve their lot in life.....you can make excuses on why they don't.....the reality is they've made the choice to not do that and that's dictated by their decisions.
I'm the last one to defend some of Wal-Mart's labor practices but it is not the governments problem that people do not want to improve upon their standard of living.
Tired of supporting other people? Tell the plutocrats to stop being cheap with their labor force and people wouldn't need paid benefits.
Huh? How bout you tell the people you supposedly defending that if they want a better life...do something about it instead of asking uncle sam to make their life better while not proving an once of additional value.
Bottom line is unskilled workers can take advantage of opportunities...they just have to put forth the effort....and not make decisions that adversely impact their future earning potential. While these people should not be punished for their bad decisions...they also should not be rewarded for them...
Do you have a financial analysis of some kind to make this claim that they would be going out of business?
Do not be dense. Wal-Mart dominates the retail industry due to is pricing....with out it others are more competitive....losing Wal-Mart market share.
Costco also makes profit by selling in quantity and somehow manages to pay an average salary of more than twice that of Wal-Mart. If you want to claim that increasing wages would put them out of business (in the face of making billions in profit), you need to back that up.
You should do some research. Look at the market Costco caters too.......is it any surprise the average salary of a Costco customer is 89K......not to mention Costco is bulk warehouse to which majority of people are already priced out of......and have 1/4 of th revenue of Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart gets by having a 3% margin and keeping other cost, namely labor down.
But let’s say for a second that Wal-Marts business model is so fickle that paying a living wage would put them out of business: do you think it's reasonable that the US Tax payers be responsible for paying the bills of Wal-Wart employees so while the company turns billions in profits? This is corporate welfare at its finest.
Wal-Mart also is the single largest private employer of US citizens. It makes less profit per SKU than Costco.......while you talk of the "corporate welfare" yet do not take in account the millions of people who shop at Wal-Mart and almost depend upon its cheap prices.....of which no other retailer, even Costco can compete with.....there is good and bad with Wal-Mart but acting as if providing high demand consumer goods at the cheapest possible price does not have a benefit to society of poor people you are defending is just disingenuous.
As has been said, paying a low wage is a decision, not a necessity for business models.
Fair enough....staying an unskilled worker is a decision, not necessity....asking to get a raise while providing no additional value is asinine in my book. You have to earn things in this country. unless you have a disability.
1) Entitlements average $300-450/mo per recipient (depending on state) if you had that little income - how livable would even a 10% cut make? Likely starvation or debt that they'd default on would be the result - both of which involve thousands of dollars of public loss to avoid even as little as $1/day of benefits.
2) WalMart only averages that looking at SKUs equally not sales numbers - they run about 30-40% profit per location for WalMart in MD. Plenty of SKUs are loss leaders even - but the drastic margin on clothing is what drives that. WalMart pays $0.50-$1.50 per article of clothing they stock with little out of that range, and shipping costs on them is minimal - sold for $5-15 generally. And dollarwise 50% of what is spent in WalMart falls under clothing and accessories.
3) On Costco demos - 40% of Costco memberships are business memberships, some are likely faux that don't use it for their business - but most should be, which would skew that figure heavily.
You should do some research. Look at the market Costco caters too.......is it any surprise the average salary of a Costco customer is 89K......not to mention Costco is bulk warehouse to which majority of people are already priced out of......and have 1/4 of th revenue of Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart gets by having a 3% margin and keeping other cost, namely labor down.
Get's by?
Wal-Mart posts billions in profits every year. Here is a financial statement for 2011.
They are doing phenomenal and it is their current owners decision to boost their profits by paying so little. We're in a recession, plenty of people willing to work for slave wages just so they won't starve. Who cares if the system is screwed up.
Quote from Billy »
Wal-Mart also is the single largest private employer of US citizens. It makes less profit per SKU than Costco.......while you talk of the "corporate welfare" yet do not take in account the millions of people who shop at Wal-Mart and almost depend upon its cheap prices.....of which no other retailer, even Costco can compete with.....there is good and bad with Wal-Mart but acting as if providing high demand consumer goods at the cheapest possible price does not have a benefit to society of poor people you are defending is just disingenuous.
People managed to buy groceries and clothes before wal-mart came to be. Part of the problem stems from them being the single largest private employer and paying so little. May as well be Pullman Scrip for all the good it does them.
We're in a recession, plenty of people willing to work for slave wages just so they won't starve.
Quantify "slave wages". I do not think you have the slightest idea on how bad it could be......and thats the huge problem liberals have.....you use the term "slave wages" when our standard of living is, even for our poor, astronomically higher compared to many countries. I have no idea what standard you people use for "slave wages". Not to mention your idea people are entitled to higher pay with out earning it.....if they did not want to earn those wages....they should go to school and do what is needed to get a better paying job.....you idea is just to give it to people.....and it will never work because those with out skill can never produce anything of significant value, not labor, not product and not service. When those people start to provide value to their employer, their pay will demonstrate that because that value will be in demand..over the long term because that value will increase the profitability/viability of the company. I make minimum wage now due the job market here in Vegas....however, I just accepted a job paying 14.50 and hour due to the skills I've obtained and can provide my new employer.
Oh, BTW....I don't starve or did I ever go hungry.... and BTW.....120 people died of starvation in 2004 and I think some of those were abuse cases by parents....
Wal-Mart posts billions in profits every year. Here is a financial statement for 2011.
They are doing phenomenal and it is their current owners decision to boost their profits by paying so little. We're in a recession, plenty of people willing to work for slave wages just so they won't starve. Who cares if the system is screwed up.
We're in a recession, plenty of people willing to work for slave wages just so they won't starve.
Quantify "slave wages". I do not think you have the slightest idea on how bad it could be......and thats the huge problem liberals have.....you use the term "slave wages" when our standard of living is, even for our poor, is astronomical compared to many countries. Not to mention your idea people are entitled to higher pay with out earning it.....if they did not want to earn those wages....they should go to school and do what is needed to get a better paying job.....you idea is just to give it to people.....and it will never work because those with out skill can never produce anything of significant value, not labor, not product and not service. When those people start to provide additional value to their employer, their pay will demonstrate that.
"It could be worse" is never, and will never, be a reason to accept a current bum situation. We are not other countries. We get to be compared to ourselves, particular historically speaking. We get to look at how our policy has helped to shape America from what it was to what it is to what it could be.
And no, the employer is going to fight to have to pay more. Look at history, look at the early 1900s labor dispute. It took a fight to get people to get anything even close to a fair share of what they were building. It lasted for quite awhile too, but then again people have a tendency to forget the lessons of the past and people working together to ensure a fair amount of pay was chipped away at to the point where millions of working class people seem to think unions are bad, even in principle. The only thing that the common man has against corporate power is himself and his compatriots.
Going to school is great, but where are the jobs for college graduates? We're in a U shaped recovery. A college aged kid gets to fight with all the unemployed people with 10+ years work experience since the jobs simply don't exist anymore. A high unemployment is beneficial to the wealthy for a variety of reasons, as I'm sure you are aware, no?
The overall issue is how we, as a country, distribute the wealth of our nation. What we have now is, for the most part, an incredible focus on helping the incredibly wealthy stay there and to get even more obscenely wealthy while talk of an actual living wage is "just giving it to people"... and no, that isn't it. There are plenty of metrics about how actual wages and income and a whole host of things have been in stagnation, or even dropping, in real terms since the 1970's for people in the bottom ~90% of income.
That first article is about an inter-company email by one executive who was then "gently" reprimanded by
Quote from that thing you linked »
“As with any organization, we often see internal communications that are not entirely accurate, that lack the proper context and represent individual opinions,” David Tovar, a Wal-Mart spokesman, said in an interview, adding that the company will report fourth-quarter earnings on Feb. 21. Wal- Mart’s fourth quarter ends in January.
Best buy is also a terrible example, since they are basically Amazon.com's free storeroom. It also remains to be seen if their sales are actually as bad as one executive feared. Heck, maybe their sales will be 33% worse than they were in 2011 and the company will only have 10 Billion dollars in profits. Together we can sing the sad song of melancholy for the suffering they will have endured.
Billy: Nevada has one of the cheapest housing markets in the nation - identical housing here vs Vegas is literally just shy of two times as much for housing and 35% more for utilities (and more on everything else as well but 5% or so) to the tune of needing $65000 to do what can be done on $50k in Vegas.
"It could be worse" is never, and will never, be a reason to accept a current bum situation.
You keep using these terms...."slave wages" and "bum situation" with out quantifying them. The reason people like you have zero credibility on this issue is because you cant quantify anything.
We are not other countries. We get to be compared to ourselves, particular historically speaking. We get to look at how our policy has helped to shape America from what it was to what it is to what it could be.
You guys love to compare us to Europe on gun control and other social policies....
And no, the employer is going to fight to have to pay more. Look at history, look at the early 1900s labor dispute. It took a fight to get people to get anything even close to a fair share of what they were building.
Quantify "fair share".
It lasted for quite awhile too, but then again people have a tendency to forget the lessons of the past and people working together to ensure a fair amount of pay was chipped away at to the point where millions of working class people seem to think unions are bad, even in principle. The only thing that the common man has against corporate power is himself and his compatriots.
Yep...and not the government bailing them out with wage hikes and huge government programs that may result in less jobs.
Going to school is great, but where are the jobs for college graduates? We're in a U shaped recovery. A college aged kid gets to fight with all the unemployed people with 10+ years work experience since the jobs simply don't exist anymore. A high unemployment is beneficial to the wealthy for a variety of reasons, as I'm sure you are aware, no?
The current economic situation is relatively short-term....basing long-term policies and practices on this blip on the radar is stupid. Because a college graduate can not find a job right now does not do anything to lessen his prospect at having a prosperous 30 year career as opposed to an unskilled worker.
The overall issue is how we, as a country, distribute the wealth of our nation.
No....liberals are the only one who use that premise and most libertarians and conservatives, for that matter, refute it.
The collective wealth of the nation does not belong to the collective. It belongs to the person(s) who earns it. You are no one is entitled to a piece of the pie. You are entitled to an opportunity to earn a slice of the pie. Of course I do nto think for a minute you accept that premise...so here we are....you fight to give things....me fighting to maintain what I've earned so you don't give it away.
What we have now is, for the most part, an incredible focus on helping the incredibly wealthy stay there and to get even more obscenely wealthy while talk of an actual living wage is "just giving it to people"... and no, that isn't it.
Quantify a "living wage". Never mind, I want you to focus on solutions that would improve the value these "slave laborers" can provide so they can earn more.....but you won't because you feel they are entitled to something with out providing a damn thing.
Over 70% of the tax bill is paid by the wealthy....I'm wondering where that money goes.....
At least 45% goes to entitlement programs (of the rich do not benefit from) for the poor and another significant percentage goes to defense.
There are plenty of metrics about how actual wages and income and a whole host of things have been in stagnation, or even dropping, in real terms since the 1970's for people in the bottom ~90% of income.
Yet, entitlement programs are considerably higher. Coincidence? You measure things by just wages I can see how you can draw those conclusions.....but the reality is....our poor people have cell phones.....food stamps.....increased access to federal programs.....etc...etc......not to mention the recent health care expansion....liberals want their cake and eat it too.....they want to give everyone everything and make sure they get paid good too.....that will not work unless those people start producing something of value.....
You completely missed the point. My response was to your own suggestion of you wanting to work, not mine. My qualm was directed more at your "$15/hr" base it would require to replicate your current standard of living to justify working and coming off disability. If you need disability, you need disability.
Again, if you truly need disability, you need disability. You speak of double talk but your the one who says you could/want to work....given the right circumstances one of which being pay.
So? The want is what drives us as humans.
I disagree with this. There are plenty of people on food stamps who do not steal or resort to crime, nor did they before they were on food stamps.
http://www.city-journal.org/2011/21_3_crime-decline.html
You can talk about entitlements fixing crime, I do not believe it. While I think there might be a correlation, I'm not sure you could make a convincing argument that it is for certain.
This is such a bogus comparison. There are significant degrees of separation between India and the US. It always one extreme or the other, seems there is no interest in moderation. However, considering you've seen India you should know our poor live pretty damn good and if you've seen Afghanistan or Iraq you understand even more......not to mention...the Kosovo and Albania since were siting personal observations.
I do not see a valid reason why our poor can not tighten their belts just like the rest of us should. I'm not advocating a complete removal of entitlements but some cuts are warranted. Further, increasing the minimum wage does nothing but increase the dependence of poor people on the government. If poor people keep getting hand outs that purportedly enhance their standard of living, how does that teach them to strive for more. And before you start on my supposed anti-lazy stance....its has nothing to do with laziness....at least not in a derogatory way.
The more incentive you give people to not strive for more......i.e. making it easier to be poor......the less they will strive for more.
On topic...I still do not understand how raising the minimum wage makes them less poor.....they will still be at the bottom.....and their will be people who will continue to argue we need to do more for them. I'm all for helping people...to a certain extent...
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Meanwhile you screw the people who earned their raises while forcing them to pay higher cost.....
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
You're missing the crux of the problem - why should I risk shooting myself in the foot by forsaking disability to better myself and put myself in a worse position in the end?
There's no logic in that - my desire to work is tempered by reason that shows without earnings in that ballpark I'll actually LOSE money by trying to work - and if I try and fail, that loss will take TWO YEARS or longer before I recover my losses. (Besides Medicare, that would come back almost immediately - and Medicare's replacement costs are part of that calculation)
So I could gamble on something making $12/hr and fail (or get fired due to work limitations) and be thousands of dollars a month behind where I am now - or maybe not even see the raises needed to fill the gap for years. (Quite likely without promotion in fact as someone who gave raises for his company)
Especially when I don't know the future prognosis for my health - since even the John's Hopkins neurology expert on the aspect of my genetics that is a problem gave me a big "I dunno" explanation when I tried to ask about my expected progression. (Besides the one specific which I already suffer from that I won't detail because it's embarassing, and the same reason he didn't know to not bother detailing it to me - my GP's know however)
Pay is important - would you take a less secure job for lesser pay? In my hiring I only saw it rarely, and only when there was a very aggressive work environment - which is completely alien to disability.
Right - because a job that actually advertises as explicitly "Disability Friendly" should be something that normals are lining up for. You think disabled people should work, but at the same time you think the limited number of jobs that actually are disability appropriate should be FFA.
The logic disconnect is astounding.
Heck, there's not even hiring benefits for most disability cases - with the exception of Blindness and Deafness. (And I think Down's type mental development disorders as well - although I don't have first hand experience with those hiring benefits, since my work wasn't on the approved list for mental handicap hiring benefits since it would've been dangerous to them and/or customers)
If you can only work in a fraction of the available jobs - and you're expected to have more sickdays than normal - and those jobs are more desired by "normals" than most... What do you honestly think the odds are of getting a job over other candidates?
Hell, even Stephen Hawking himself as a certified genius and one of the smartest men on the planet has stated that had his condition manifested BEFORE he got a chance to prove himself he likely would've been stuck on benefits programs his entire life. If a man of his caliber doubts the ability to prove themself to get a job to offset the issues of disability (even if his disability is more extreme than most) - how much luck should us less bright folks expect?
The only logical thing that occurs with disability to help the majority get off of disability is there's programs that offer more reasonable business loans to disabled folk - but running a business isn't for everyone, especially alone. (In my case, the wife has no desire to work in any business I would)
If I do my Orlando move that I'm considering I likely will try a business down there if it looks like my idea can fit the area once I've been down there a bit - the cost to establishing a business is doable in Orlando from my research, around here I'd have to pony up basically my entire portfolio in addition to the loans assuming I don't want to remortgage my paid off house. (Which I don't want to do) In Orlando, I'd barely need to go into it at all, in fact, might even be able to do it on loans alone - since from what I'm gathering of Florida Business loans you can stack normal with the disability loans there, can't here.
Since it's been an option, sure - look at petty crime in 1900 versus 1950 sometime. Petty Crime was a constant concern in the early 20th century before welfare programs started - once they were in place it's almost unheard of outside of the 12-16 age bracket.
Bad article - they ignore the fact of the Hoovervilles providing support structure (in an ugly fashion - they made the OWS campouts look teensy in comparison) for the first time and only count crimes with reports, which most petty crime was only reported via a policeman's log.
You're not sure or you're certain? Another logical crux in a singular statement.
And they didn't "fix crime" they reduced petty theft from levels where they were responsible for 2-3% GDP loss in the early 20th century to numbers too low to publish by the 1950's.
Additionally it's easily demonstratable in business insurance where Petty Theft became a common add-on in the 1920's when it was introduced, but by the 1950's became almost unheard of outside of bodegas and convenience stores - to the 1990's where the insurance companies finally did off with it entirely to simplify things. [And also to raise rates on those same insured bodegas and convenience stores indirectly - most don't carry insurance anymore because of it]
You talk about gutting our programs to the point where they'd start to be indistinguishable. Most people in the US on entitlements see about $10-15 in benefits a day. Average beggar in India receives the equivalent to $5-7 a day, and with their COL being drastically less they might already be ahead.
No, you're clearly not - because you don't seem to understand that very few people are going to take the leap between "entitlements" and work if work pays them less.
And you think a sane, rational way to encourage them to work is instead of making sure any job should easily exceed entitlements is to reduce entitlements to the point where they're completely impossible to live on healthily. (Which of course, being unhealthy then makes them REALLY good workers)
I worked in hiring people all the time, even in the most extreme cases where someone loathed their current work or other situation people didn't want to see a dip in their income more than maybe $100 a month in the "working class" tiers. (Executive tiers are different, but then again, you're way over the hump at that point)
And the primary problem with entitlements as they exist today is the penalties that occur to said entitlements IMMEDIATELY upon working and then can't return for quite a while afterwards - meaning if they try to work and the job doesn't work out, say they get unlucky and the business goes under... say they do something accidental that gets them fired... say they're stupid and handle cash improperly.... or whatever else. Suddenly not only are they down the money from the job, but their "entitlements" are now stunted (or more often REMOVED) for 12-36 months.
Can you live without any income for 1-3 years? Do you see the Catch-22 that is created by such policies?
What we should do is keep things where they are and INCENTIVIZE people to work their way off the programs.
Your idea is akin to telling employees they're all going to be fired if X isn't accomplished - which is a piss poor way to get results - the way to almost always achieve said goals is to put a carrot in the form of a bonus on accomplishing X. (Either as an individual or a whole - only individual makes sense for entitlements)
Give people a reason to better themselves and they will, beat them down and they'll just give up and mire. And the systems have already been set up on the beatdown formula and are continuing to prove worse and worse - logic says you don't just start working on more extreme versions of the same and expect a different result, logic states that's the definition of insanity in fact.
The same goes in reverse too you do realize, right? When the top earners get bonus after bonus, costs raise on everyone as well - you make a compelling argument for no raises being allowed ever. But I don't think anyone would agree with that lunacy.
Really that statement of yours just reads like you're pissy because you're earning at or slightly above the suggested minimum wages and find it abhorrent that you'd be considered minimum wage and have to pay a fraction more than you do now for the same things you get.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
.[/QUOTE]
Can I get a source for this? I was under the impression that these people made like 1$ a DAY for working, why work if you can comparable funds to begging?
When I was referring to the beggar earnings I may have highballed a little though - I do see a 200 rupee a day quote (roughly $4) as a consistency for him - but he very well might be an outlier. (Although some old Mother Theresa quotes adjusted for time do fall in a similar range - but that was a long time ago and well before they really boomed as an outsourcing territory)
Not to mention the entire familial pride that occurs in Indian culture - there's a reason why the poor class is largely referred to as "untouchables" - they're largely frowned on as a point of culture.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
No, we just disagree with what the crux of the problem is. IF you wanted to work, I have no issue with you refusing to do so if it means a lesser quality of life given you current benefit/entitlement. There is no reason for you to do so. To me, that is the problem. The government is essentially forcing you to depend on them. If your entitlement was somewhat less, working would be more competitive. You feel you are entitled to $15/hr. I feel, that level of entitlement is a determent to you working....whether you want to work or not.
No…you are the one making suppositions concerning to the degree I would “gut” programs. In, fact I’ve never stated to what I degree they need cutting, just that they needed cutting.
Again, we disagree on how to make it a little less practical to depend on government than work. Pay them a little less entitlements and the incentive to work will increase without increasing cost for a company owner and its customers.
No, you continue to sensationalize to the degree cuts should be made and the impact they should have. Once again, I’ve never stated to the degree cuts should be made except that current entitlements should not be a disincentive people from working.
I mean, I’m getting by on minimum wage and have for about a year. This will not for much longer as I’ve recently secured job that pays almost double that but less than the $15/hr estimate you get….I know for certain 14.50/hr I’m getting from my new job is more than enough to have decent life. Say your entitlement gets cut to $14.50….that at least makes the job market slightly more competitive. You on the other hand think, it’s up to the government to force the employer to compete with your disability check.
This idea that someone who’s been successful and being rewarded is screwing someone is non-sense. The fact you compare that to a new hire who has done nothing and gets a raise is lunacy.
No, I’d be pissy because someone who has not done anything was just entitled to a raise that I earned meaning my work and efforts was essentially wasted. You see no difference between entitlements and earning something….I do. In other words, because someone earned something does not mean the other guy who did not should be entitled to the same thing.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Here in Oregon, if we didn't have people pump our gas for us, there's another 50,000 on the unemployment line.
Yes, we should push people to get working, but you have to be blind to our current economic situation if you think there's just jobs waiting to be filled. There just isn't.
It's a buyers market for workers, the employers have all the power right now. I see people with 4 year degrees going unemployed for months at a time because the market for workers is flooded with people with 4 year degrees who need jobs.
Job growth is as stagnant as it's ever been.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
^^^
I got laid off in a disastrous company collapse last year. I've got a set of skills that are highly valued in my industry and pretty rare, extreme thumbs up recommendations from everyone I worked for at my previous company, and it still took me nearly 10 months to find work again, because the market flooded with game designers in the industry semi-collapse (really, two different bubbles bursting - because game industry executives are largely pretty worthless, and they actually bought the MMO hype after WoW and bought the social/casual hype after Farmville, core gaming is doing fine still) last year. Anyone who thinks that all it takes to get a job is some willpower in this climate hasn't had to look recently.
How about we force the employers to pay them a living wage and they'll have no need for earn benefits. Why does this idea never occur to conservatives? If people make more they won't need assistance, and they'll have a better motivator to work harder, not just longer (and they'll be able to, like, buy stuff and contribute to the economy).
The idea that we need to give poor people less to motivate them is insane. Right now the US Tax payers and giving BILLIONs extra every year so corporations can pay people less. Essentially, we are giving away money to people that are already disgustingly rich by allowing them to pay people such a small wages (80% of the Wal-Mart workforce qualifies for assistance, which comes out of OUR taxes, let’s have Wal-Mart pay for the food their employees eat for once).
Tired of supporting other people? Tell the plutocrats to stop being cheap with their labor force and people wouldn't need paid benefits.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
Cool idea but Wal-Mart's margins blow. The reason they are profitable is because of the massive amount of stuff they sell. If it costs just a little bit more to sell each of those items they no longer make any money and go out of business.
The reason that the government gives billions of dollars to corporations is because if they dont those corporations would go somewhere else taking their jobs and tax revenue with them. The government isnt just handing out money because they have extra laying around.
Do you have a financial analysis of some kind to make this claim that they would be going out of business? Costco also makes profit by selling in quantity and somehow manages to pay an average salary of more than twice that of Wal-Mart. If you want to claim that increasing wages would put them out of business (in the face of making billions in profit), you need to back that up.
But let’s say for a second that Wal-Marts business model is so fickle that paying a living wage would put them out of business: do you think it's reasonable that the US Tax payers be responsible for paying the bills of Wal-Wart employees so while the company turns billions in profits? This is corporate welfare at its finest.
As has been said, paying a low wage is a decision, not a necessity for business models.
Like this wasn't happening before? Companies are already encouraged to take business overseas as much as possible because the US tax code is borked. But Wal-Mart isn't leaving the US. If they increase their wages they're still be turning a profit (A huge one at that), and people like me would stop boycotting them.
How do you justify the claim that a company who made 17 billion last year is in need of Government subsidies? If you're a proponent of decreasing the national cost of earned benefits, it seems like you would be in favor of measures to help make people working full time become less reliant on such services.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
Actually India is a VERY valid comparison. Urban areas in India look a lot like urban areas in the US around the beginning of the 20th century. Get "How the other Half Lives" and look at the pictures.
The circumstances are very similar: rapid urbanization, increased real wealth, low regulation, massive population concentration.
The only reason I favor the lower brackets to pay a bit more taxes (belt tightening as you say) is because they currently have little skin in the game when it comes to voting for amenities. Would they cough up another 10% of their checks to healthcare?
Heck you don't even have to cut the marginal rates, just cut the refundable tax credits. The EIC, Child Credit (& especially extended child credit) can go along with some fake middle class deductions (like home mortgage interest) that really help the upper class more. Level out capital gains taxes to make them closer to marginal income rates and you could fix a crap load of budget problems and get everyone playing.
Billy: I don't get anywhere near $2400 ($15/h full time) in actualized benefits - I get close to half of that pure dollarwise in line with fulltime at min wage or so. But SS is untaxed and my insurance contribution is limited to $180/mo - average employee contribution is between $300-400/mo currently. Then you add travel costs of $200/mo.... (in line with a 30m commute - shorter than any in my job history mind you....)
Brute forcing via pure dollars is far less efficient for me. Since as you can see I'd have to make a ton more than my benefit amount (that note as PURE SS is "paid for" from my working years) in order to get the same standard of living as my "free minimum wage pay". (And note I'll have to live past 70 unlikely with my health - to actually have taken more from SS than I paid in...)
And I didn't even touch on lost free time or anything - since that's not empyrical.
And on cutting benefits - when the average person is getting $10-15/day in benefits and rent even in cheap areas is over $600/mo do you notice a small problem there? And sure there's Section 8 for those types - but Section 8 waiting lists in many counties are exceeding 7 years these days. (Average wait nationwide is 3 years)
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
If I make $5 an hour, but its worth 10-20 euros, I can buy more with my money.
BUWGRChilds PlayGRWUB
BUWGR Highlander GRWUB
UBSquee's Shapeshifting PetBU
BW Multiplayer Control WB
RG Changeling GR
UR Mana FlareRU
UMerfolkU
B MBMC B
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Because the idea of a "living wage" is subjective....what you deem a living wage and what I deem a living wage are entirely different I bet. The only thing government should do give the opportunity to earn a living wage...not dictate it. You want to send people to school or get training, I'll all for it....
How come it never occurs to liberals that the incentive the private sector has to compete against the entitlements is too high.....hell....most liberals will not accept a single cent being stripped of entitlements...
The goal is not to "motivate" them.....its to provide incentive. The simple reality is.....if people can not work and earn the same living....whats the point of working? I don't blame them. I was one of them.
Yet, Wal-Mart provides the cheapest food of anyone...oh....and btw...they are the single largest private employer of US citizens. Besides that...nothing is stopping those employees from getting student loans and going to school while working to improve their lot in life.....you can make excuses on why they don't.....the reality is they've made the choice to not do that and that's dictated by their decisions.
I'm the last one to defend some of Wal-Mart's labor practices but it is not the governments problem that people do not want to improve upon their standard of living.
Huh? How bout you tell the people you supposedly defending that if they want a better life...do something about it instead of asking uncle sam to make their life better while not proving an once of additional value.
Bottom line is unskilled workers can take advantage of opportunities...they just have to put forth the effort....and not make decisions that adversely impact their future earning potential. While these people should not be punished for their bad decisions...they also should not be rewarded for them...
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Do not be dense. Wal-Mart dominates the retail industry due to is pricing....with out it others are more competitive....losing Wal-Mart market share.
You should do some research. Look at the market Costco caters too.......is it any surprise the average salary of a Costco customer is 89K......not to mention Costco is bulk warehouse to which majority of people are already priced out of......and have 1/4 of th revenue of Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart gets by having a 3% margin and keeping other cost, namely labor down.
Wal-Mart also is the single largest private employer of US citizens. It makes less profit per SKU than Costco.......while you talk of the "corporate welfare" yet do not take in account the millions of people who shop at Wal-Mart and almost depend upon its cheap prices.....of which no other retailer, even Costco can compete with.....there is good and bad with Wal-Mart but acting as if providing high demand consumer goods at the cheapest possible price does not have a benefit to society of poor people you are defending is just disingenuous.
Fair enough....staying an unskilled worker is a decision, not necessity....asking to get a raise while providing no additional value is asinine in my book. You have to earn things in this country. unless you have a disability.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
2) WalMart only averages that looking at SKUs equally not sales numbers - they run about 30-40% profit per location for WalMart in MD. Plenty of SKUs are loss leaders even - but the drastic margin on clothing is what drives that. WalMart pays $0.50-$1.50 per article of clothing they stock with little out of that range, and shipping costs on them is minimal - sold for $5-15 generally. And dollarwise 50% of what is spent in WalMart falls under clothing and accessories.
3) On Costco demos - 40% of Costco memberships are business memberships, some are likely faux that don't use it for their business - but most should be, which would skew that figure heavily.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Get's by?
Wal-Mart posts billions in profits every year. Here is a financial statement for 2011.
They are doing phenomenal and it is their current owners decision to boost their profits by paying so little. We're in a recession, plenty of people willing to work for slave wages just so they won't starve. Who cares if the system is screwed up.
People managed to buy groceries and clothes before wal-mart came to be. Part of the problem stems from them being the single largest private employer and paying so little. May as well be Pullman Scrip for all the good it does them.
Quantify "slave wages". I do not think you have the slightest idea on how bad it could be......and thats the huge problem liberals have.....you use the term "slave wages" when our standard of living is, even for our poor, astronomically higher compared to many countries. I have no idea what standard you people use for "slave wages". Not to mention your idea people are entitled to higher pay with out earning it.....if they did not want to earn those wages....they should go to school and do what is needed to get a better paying job.....you idea is just to give it to people.....and it will never work because those with out skill can never produce anything of significant value, not labor, not product and not service. When those people start to provide value to their employer, their pay will demonstrate that because that value will be in demand..over the long term because that value will increase the profitability/viability of the company. I make minimum wage now due the job market here in Vegas....however, I just accepted a job paying 14.50 and hour due to the skills I've obtained and can provide my new employer.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Except this is not 2011. I don't know if you've noticed, but Wal-Mart has had some horrific sales since the start of the year.
It's not just Wal-Mart that is suffering too. J.C. Penney's sales are down in the dumps as well. Best Buy is not only closing more stores, but they're laying off jobs at their headquarters too. The big retailers as a whole are taking huge hits.
"It could be worse" is never, and will never, be a reason to accept a current bum situation. We are not other countries. We get to be compared to ourselves, particular historically speaking. We get to look at how our policy has helped to shape America from what it was to what it is to what it could be.
And no, the employer is going to fight to have to pay more. Look at history, look at the early 1900s labor dispute. It took a fight to get people to get anything even close to a fair share of what they were building. It lasted for quite awhile too, but then again people have a tendency to forget the lessons of the past and people working together to ensure a fair amount of pay was chipped away at to the point where millions of working class people seem to think unions are bad, even in principle. The only thing that the common man has against corporate power is himself and his compatriots.
Going to school is great, but where are the jobs for college graduates? We're in a U shaped recovery. A college aged kid gets to fight with all the unemployed people with 10+ years work experience since the jobs simply don't exist anymore. A high unemployment is beneficial to the wealthy for a variety of reasons, as I'm sure you are aware, no?
The overall issue is how we, as a country, distribute the wealth of our nation. What we have now is, for the most part, an incredible focus on helping the incredibly wealthy stay there and to get even more obscenely wealthy while talk of an actual living wage is "just giving it to people"... and no, that isn't it. There are plenty of metrics about how actual wages and income and a whole host of things have been in stagnation, or even dropping, in real terms since the 1970's for people in the bottom ~90% of income.
Yeah, last year they only profited 15.7 Billion
That first article is about an inter-company email by one executive who was then "gently" reprimanded by
Best buy is also a terrible example, since they are basically Amazon.com's free storeroom. It also remains to be seen if their sales are actually as bad as one executive feared. Heck, maybe their sales will be 33% worse than they were in 2011 and the company will only have 10 Billion dollars in profits. Together we can sing the sad song of melancholy for the suffering they will have endured.
And your burbs are likely even cheaper.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
You keep using these terms...."slave wages" and "bum situation" with out quantifying them. The reason people like you have zero credibility on this issue is because you cant quantify anything.
You guys love to compare us to Europe on gun control and other social policies....
Quantify "fair share".
Yep...and not the government bailing them out with wage hikes and huge government programs that may result in less jobs.
The current economic situation is relatively short-term....basing long-term policies and practices on this blip on the radar is stupid. Because a college graduate can not find a job right now does not do anything to lessen his prospect at having a prosperous 30 year career as opposed to an unskilled worker.
No....liberals are the only one who use that premise and most libertarians and conservatives, for that matter, refute it.
The collective wealth of the nation does not belong to the collective. It belongs to the person(s) who earns it. You are no one is entitled to a piece of the pie. You are entitled to an opportunity to earn a slice of the pie. Of course I do nto think for a minute you accept that premise...so here we are....you fight to give things....me fighting to maintain what I've earned so you don't give it away.
Quantify a "living wage". Never mind, I want you to focus on solutions that would improve the value these "slave laborers" can provide so they can earn more.....but you won't because you feel they are entitled to something with out providing a damn thing.
Over 70% of the tax bill is paid by the wealthy....I'm wondering where that money goes.....
Yet, entitlement programs are considerably higher. Coincidence? You measure things by just wages I can see how you can draw those conclusions.....but the reality is....our poor people have cell phones.....food stamps.....increased access to federal programs.....etc...etc......not to mention the recent health care expansion....liberals want their cake and eat it too.....they want to give everyone everything and make sure they get paid good too.....that will not work unless those people start producing something of value.....
Off of over $400,000,000,000 in revenue......I wonder where the other $384,000,000,000 went.....do you even care?
Please stop only looking at the surface....your cherry picking facts with out putting things in perspective is getting old.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.