Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Fed should raise the minimum wage so that it reflects the "inflation" we have seen for the past number years since the last adjustment. Same adjustment in SS should be done to the minimum wage.
We have allowed business to be be subsidized by the low wages because of our keeping the minimum wage low.
There is no subsidization of business due to the minimum wage level.
I think there will always be so-called inequalities amongst people no matter what.
How dare you state facts like that. Don't you know a highly educated neurosurgeon and a high school dropout burger flipper contribute equally to society and the economy?
Income inequality is a red herring, a non-issue, not worth discoussing.
The important question is whether one's sandard of living has increased, decreased, or reminaed the same over a given time period. That is the real measure of economic strength.
The "business subsidy" comes in the form of food stamps to the employee who is paid the minimum wage. They don't have to pay a "living wage" because the government is chipping in.
The "business subsidy" comes in the form of food stamps to the employee who is paid the minimum wage. They don't have to pay a "living wage" because the government is chipping in.
In my state, I believe that a single person making Minimum-Wage Full-time is earning far too much income to be eligible for food stamp money. Such a person would need to be supporting a family.
I accept that in our culture today, there are 0.01% of our population whose annual earnings may be 1,000X [or even more] greater than a Minimum-Wage worker.
I think that my children if they were so motivated, would have had some probability of a chance in their lifetimes to become one of those 0.01% of our population.
I think of the docu-dramas that have been produced about Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. Their practices were not always ethical maneuvers, and a great deal of what happened with their empires can only be ascribed to 'dumb luck'.
The fact that these men exist, means that it is possible for anyone to become the next generation of the 0.01%.
I am okay with how my life has turned out. I am very proud of my sons, and how their lives are turning out. I do not see any benefit from being jealous of the uber-wealthy.
So why is the 'Economic Inequality' issue still being debated? How is it an evil in our society?
"Nearly 51 million households don't earn enough to afford a monthly budget that includes housing, food, child care, health care, transportation and a cell phone, according to a study released Thursday by the United Way ALICE Project. That's 43% of households in the United States."
"Despite seemingly positive economic signs, the ALICE data shows that financial hardship is still a pervasive problem," said Stephanie Hoopes, the project's director."
- End article excerpts
I guess almost half of Americans don't deserve a living wage as a bare minimum because they are (according to some on this forum):
1. Illiterate
2. Have poor work ethic
3. Have a criminal record
4. Not educated enough
4. (Insert another excuse here)
Even with that large percentage of people (roughly half of US households) struggling to make basic ends meet: Move along folks, nothing to see here. Never mind the man behind the curtain. There is not an income inequality problem in this country. Half of Americans deserve the spot they are in (not making a living wage as a minimum) despite them working a full time job. Only a percentage of people deserve a living wage if they work full time, not everybody. Screw em. After all, half of the US must be illiterate, poor work ethic, criminal record (insert another excuse here).
Look, the sooner we wake up and realize that all humans are intrinsically greedy (to one degree or another - myself included) and have a tendency to take more then what we need, that we tend to make laws, environments and policies to favor this and the sooner we realize that the important thing is taking care of the greater good (each person), instead of placing most of the wealth in the hands of the few (corporations/people), the better off we will be as a civilization.
We still have time. We can do this.
I have a hard time believing this figure. I know that there are a lot of struggling households out there, but roughly half....? Something doesn't sound right.
If we lower the tax on everyone this helps everyone financially
Trump lowered taxes on the rich. the tax savings to the others is eaten up by gas prices going up and won't be seen and is mostly meaningless if it's a the price of a lunch a week.
How does lowering taxes help the little old lady living on social security of $800 a month? She's lucky if she can keep a roof over her head and food on her table and pay for tylenol and toilet paper.
Trump lowered taxes on the rich. the tax savings to the others is eaten up by gas prices going up and won't be seen and is mostly meaningless if it's a the price of a lunch a week.
How does lowering taxes help the little old lady living on social security of $800 a month? She's lucky if she can keep a roof over her head and food on her table and pay for tylenol and toilet paper.
Didn't he lower taxes on everyone?
Saying that he only helped the rich, is not true.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
