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.
Someone was explaining the process of wages and workers to me. They said that if there were too few workers, wages would go up. Well, I guess that person was wrong, because either the wages are high and people aren't working anyway or wages are lower than people want to work for and businesses aren't raising them.
Sometimes it truly is lack of information. How many of the homeless read the Wall Street Journal - the source of the article? There may well be, among the unwashed masses of the homeless, some who would jump at the chance. Maybe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser
Besides, I can tell you from first hand experience that businesses don't want to hire the homeless and I was told that from a counselor in the career center of the community college I was attending at the time. I doubt much has changed since then.
I don't disagree with you at all. A fascinating thing is, according to the article, Iowa is providing quite a bit of job training for what sounds like truly marketing skills (e.g., welding) for which there are immediate job openings going unfilled there in Iowa.
Given there are so many homeless, I imagine their capabilities and employability fall on a bell curve, and at one end there are likely to be some who would jump at the chance to get job training for something truly marketable to get off the street. They are the portion of the homeless that can be helped. Of course, then there is the other end of the bell curve...
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser
... In my case it was a small U-Haul truck and I put my car on a trailer and pulled it behind the truck. Cost to move 800 miles: over $1800 and that was 17 years ago.
How much money does it cost to get a job these days? You tell me. Take a good look at the next homeless person you see. Without a place to shower, a suit to wear, new shoes, a haircut, a place and the means to print out a resume, transportation to an interview or even several interviews, plus maybe renting a PO box so he can have an address, you think a homeless person can afford to get work where he lives, let alone halfway across the country? And if a person showed up looking like a homeless person does and/or not being able to give you a permanent address or previous work history, would you hire him? Well, we both know the answer to that one.
People who say the homeless should just get a job are the ones who would never hire a homeless person even if they had the opportunity. They're sort of like the NIMBYs of the business world.
And you know, I hate to say it, but I've been hearing business owners complain for the last 30 years about not having people working for them. I've heard over and over and over again how they just want someone reliable to show up when they're supposed to and be on time. Then you go in for the interview.
As I stated before, I have a car repossession on my credit report. I have 35 years of customer service and money handling, 17 years of that as a teller and head vault teller. I can be bonded. But because businesses today want a perfect credit report, I can't get a job as a toll taker. And I bet that company goes around complaining that they can't get anyone to work for them. Ya think?
I would pay for a bus ticket for a homeless to go to Iowa. Like me, pay for it, not give the money to a charity. Funny thing is, I've seen it more than once where homeless won't take food, they want money for who knows what.
I believe SWA would be less expensive than a bus once you factor in overnight motel stays along the way. It looks like a one-way flight is $177 (plus fees).
...The problem with that is, as a business, Disneyland is costing you, the taxpayer, in the same way that Wal-Mart is costing taxpayers who have to pay for the food stamps of employees who work for them but can't afford to buy food after they pay the bills. Wal-Mart and Disneyland and a whole bunch of other businesses are giving raises to CEOs while passing the brunt of supporting their workers onto you by refusing to pay them a living wage.
Your analysis assumes something that isn't really true.
Your analysis assumes a comparison of two states:
State A) the current state where low-wage employees at Wal-Mart & Disneyland and elsewhere are subsidized by taxpayers via food stamps and other social services; and,
State B) a hypothetical state where those same employees receive a "living wage" from those employers.
That isn't the real world. Here's the real world two-state scenario. State A is the same in both.
State A) the current state where low-wage employees at Wal-Mart & Disneyland and elsewhere are subsidized by taxpayers via food stamps and other social services; and,
State C) a hypothetical state where those same employees are unemployed and hence we taxpayers pick up the full tab for their existence.
While you point to the first comparison of State A with State B, believing that Wal-Mart & Disneyland are somehow costing taxpayer money used to subsidize the low wage employee, I see the second comparison of State A with State C wherein Wal-Mart & Disneyland are saving the taxpayer money on each of those low-wage employees. Instead of taxpayers paying 100% of a person's welfare load, the employer picks up X% and the taxpayer is only responsible for the remainder (100-X)%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser
...And judging by the number of people here who blame the employees instead of putting the blame where it belongs, on the company, it looks like these corporations are doing a pretty good job of deflecting attention from them and getting you riled up at the wrong people.
In my analysis, the corporation is removing some burden from the taxpayer. The corporation is to be lauded, not condemned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser
...Well, either Disney's gonna pay 'em of you're gonna pay 'em. Your choice.
That is the false comparison. The correct comparison is either (Disney will pay X% of a "living wage" while we taxpayers will pick up the balance) or (We taxpayers will pick up 100%). The idea that somehow Disney will pay 100% is not in the choicespace because the employee does not provide enough value to Disney in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser
...You're like the people who moan and groan because poor people getting health care is costing them money without understanding that people who don't have health care and use ERs for doctor visits are pushing health care costs higher for everyone.
But are they really?
Let's take a simple case of a poor person without health insurance who has the flu. He's quite sick.
Now, if he did have health insurance, he might go to his doctor, and a medical assistant would take his vitals (blood pressure, temperature, pulse etc) and record his symptoms (typical flu-like symptoms) and the doctor would examine him, tell him he has the flu (a virus), advise him to get plenty of fluids and bed rest and he'll start to get better in a week and some other instructions.
What is the cost with insurance? Perhaps 5 minutes of the medical assistant's time, and another 5 minutes of the doctor's time, including examination and writing up notes.
Now, let's take the more likely scenario where that same person has no insurance, and goes to the ER. After a lengthy wait, he is escorted back to an examination room where a medical assistant would take his vitals (blood pressure, temperature, pulse etc) and record his symptoms (typical flu-like symptoms) and the doctor would examine him, tell him he has the flu (a virus), advise him to get plenty of fluids and bed rest and he'll start to get better in a week and some other instructions.
What is the cost at the ER without insurance? Perhaps 5 minutes of the medical assistant's time, and another 5 minutes of the doctor's time, including examination and writing up notes.
In both cases the COST is the same.
We all know the ER's PRICE is higher, but that is a result of our screwed up system and "squeezing the balloon" to cut prices in one place only to raise them in another. That ER and really that hospital must generate $X to sustain itself, and it does so one way or another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser
...Think of that the next time you complain about the roads you're driving on. People on welfare and food stamps don't pay the taxes they would if they had higher paychecks. Meanwhile, Wal-Mart and Disney and other large corporations are getting tax breaks and taking their money out of the US and stashing it overseas so they can pay even fewer taxes.
One of the fundamental lessons of economics is that who pays a tax (Wal-Mart, Disney, and other businesses) is different from who bears the ultimate burden of the tax.
Those of us who live in states with a sales tax buy things at the store, and we look at our cash register receipt and see we've paid sales tax.
But did we? No, we did not pay sales tax. Only the retailer fills out the state tax forms & remits cash to the state taxing authority. Yet each of us knows in our gut and sees on the receipt that we "paid" the tax.
In the case of sales tax, we consumers "bear the burden" of the tax, while the retailer is the statutory payer (the entity responsible for filling out the forms & sending payment to the state).
Similarly, when you speak of tax cuts to large corporations, please recognize that corporations do indeed "pay" the tax but they never bear its burden. 100% of the burden of a tax on a corporation flows through to some combination of:
a) customers in the form of prices higher than they otherwise would be
b) employees in the form of lower total compensation (and hours worked) than it otherwise would be
c) the balance flows through to business owners (shareholders) in the form of profits lower than they otherwise would be.
There quite literally is no place else for it to go.
So reducing a corporate tax results in a combination of lower prices, higher total compensation and higher profits to owners. Again, there is quite literally no place else for it to go.
And, of course, the major shareholders to whom the profits flow include public sector pension plans. Reducing profits paid to those public sector pension plans just means the taxpayer ultimately picks up that tab.
It is very difficult. I had a truck with a camper shell. Honestly, I have no idea how people who live on the street would be able to get and hold down a job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA4Now
You are to be commended for your fortitude. (Couldn't rep you again.)
Sometimes it truly is lack of information. How many of the homeless read the Wall Street Journal - the source of the article? There may well be, among the unwashed masses of the homeless, some who would jump at the chance. Maybe.
I don't disagree with you at all. A fascinating thing is, according to the article, Iowa is providing quite a bit of job training for what sounds like truly marketing skills (e.g., welding) for which there are immediate job openings going unfilled there in Iowa.
Given there are so many homeless, I imagine their capabilities and employability fall on a bell curve, and at one end there are likely to be some who would jump at the chance to get job training for something truly marketable to get off the street. They are the portion of the homeless that can be helped. Of course, then there is the other end of the bell curve...
Very good points.
Several years ago the Police Dept. I worked for had a program where Officers would identify a homeless people who was amenable to receiving assistance and refer them to the Police Chaplain program. We had 7 or 8 ministers and priests who volunteered with the Police Department.
If the person could work, the Chaplain would try to find them a job and a place to stay until they could pay their own rent, if they couldn't work, they would try to facilitate reconciliation with their family. The chaplain would make contact and the answer was usually "no, they can't stay here, last time he/she was here we had to kick them out". But they didn't stop there..they identified agencies local to the family who could help with mental health referrals, in home supportive services etc. If the family lived out of the area the chaplain would work with a minister or priest in that area to coordinate the effort.
It wasn't 100% successful, but after a few years the chaplains said that about 50-70% of the people were still housed and were doing much better. The cohort with the highest success rate were homeless teens who were afraid to contact their family because they felt they'd burned all their bridges, but most of those kids families were so happy to hear that their son/daughter was ok that with some support and encouragement they were willing to allow them back into their home.
Like you said, capabilities fall on a bell curve which is why there will never be a one size fits all solution to homelessness.
Your analysis assumes something that isn't really true.
Your analysis assumes a comparison of two states:
State A) the current state where low-wage employees at Wal-Mart & Disneyland and elsewhere are subsidized by taxpayers via food stamps and other social services; and,
State B) a hypothetical state where those same employees receive a "living wage" from those employers.
That isn't the real world. Here's the real world two-state scenario. State A is the same in both.
State A) the current state where low-wage employees at Wal-Mart & Disneyland and elsewhere are subsidized by taxpayers via food stamps and other social services; and,
State C) a hypothetical state where those same employees are unemployed and hence we taxpayers pick up the full tab for their existence.
While you point to the first comparison of State A with State B, believing that Wal-Mart & Disneyland are somehow costing taxpayer money used to subsidize the low wage employee, I see the second comparison of State A with State C wherein Wal-Mart & Disneyland are saving the taxpayer money on each of those low-wage employees. Instead of taxpayers paying 100% of a person's welfare load, the employer picks up X% and the taxpayer is only responsible for the remainder (100-X)%.
In my analysis, the corporation is removing some burden from the taxpayer. The corporation is to be lauded, not condemned.
That is the false comparison. The correct comparison is either (Disney will pay X% of a "living wage" while we taxpayers will pick up the balance) or (We taxpayers will pick up 100%). The idea that somehow Disney will pay 100% is not in the choicespace because the employee does not provide enough value to Disney in the first place.
But are they really?
Let's take a simple case of a poor person without health insurance who has the flu. He's quite sick.
Now, if he did have health insurance, he might go to his doctor, and a medical assistant would take his vitals (blood pressure, temperature, pulse etc) and record his symptoms (typical flu-like symptoms) and the doctor would examine him, tell him he has the flu (a virus), advise him to get plenty of fluids and bed rest and he'll start to get better in a week and some other instructions.
What is the cost with insurance? Perhaps 5 minutes of the medical assistant's time, and another 5 minutes of the doctor's time, including examination and writing up notes.
Now, let's take the more likely scenario where that same person has no insurance, and goes to the ER. After a lengthy wait, he is escorted back to an examination room where a medical assistant would take his vitals (blood pressure, temperature, pulse etc) and record his symptoms (typical flu-like symptoms) and the doctor would examine him, tell him he has the flu (a virus), advise him to get plenty of fluids and bed rest and he'll start to get better in a week and some other instructions.
What is the cost at the ER without insurance? Perhaps 5 minutes of the medical assistant's time, and another 5 minutes of the doctor's time, including examination and writing up notes.
In both cases the COST is the same.
We all know the ER's PRICE is higher, but that is a result of our screwed up system and "squeezing the balloon" to cut prices in one place only to raise them in another. That ER and really that hospital must generate $X to sustain itself, and it does so one way or another.
One of the fundamental lessons of economics is that who pays a tax (Wal-Mart, Disney, and other businesses) is different from who bears the ultimate burden of the tax.
Those of us who live in states with a sales tax buy things at the store, and we look at our cash register receipt and see we've paid sales tax.
But did we? No, we did not pay sales tax. Only the retailer fills out the state tax forms & remits cash to the state taxing authority. Yet each of us knows in our gut and sees on the receipt that we "paid" the tax.
In the case of sales tax, we consumers "bear the burden" of the tax, while the retailer is the statutory payer (the entity responsible for filling out the forms & sending payment to the state).
Similarly, when you speak of tax cuts to large corporations, please recognize that corporations do indeed "pay" the tax but they never bear its burden. 100% of the burden of a tax on a corporation flows through to some combination of:
a) customers in the form of prices higher than they otherwise would be
b) employees in the form of lower total compensation (and hours worked) than it otherwise would be
c) the balance flows through to business owners (shareholders) in the form of profits lower than they otherwise would be.
There quite literally is no place else for it to go.
So reducing a corporate tax results in a combination of lower prices, higher total compensation and higher profits to owners. Again, there is quite literally no place else for it to go.
And, of course, the major shareholders to whom the profits flow include public sector pension plans. Reducing profits paid to those public sector pension plans just means the taxpayer ultimately picks up that tab.
It used to be that when companies laid off their high corporate income taxes would subsidize govt jobs for people to do. That no longer being the case we will be on our way to second world status, lots of crime violence and riots to come.
People are not just going to go off into the woods to die while corporate leadership have a big party. You are delusional if you think that.
Higher corporate taxes only lead to higher product costs or lower compensation if people tolerate it. If people stop buying something or would rather be homeless than work for paltry wages then the only remaining place for it to come out is in share holder profits, right where it should come out.
The market will decide if you can actually pass the taxes down, you dont get to pass them down just because you want to. The reduced taxes is most liekly going to result in share holders getting bigger pay outs, maybe a few jobs created, how many will actually be good jobs, who knows, I am betting not many. We already tried this with regans urinate down reganomics and it didnt work.
Also I would not be surprised if some of these plush public pensions plans go bankrupt, the new people starting with the govt dont get these plans, these are baby boomer plans and I am guessing as the younger generations get older they are not going to want to pay for it. Either everyone gets it or no one.
I believe SWA would be less expensive than a bus once you factor in overnight motel stays along the way. It looks like a one-way flight is $177 (plus fees).
Plus they might even get some free peanuts and soda .
I work at an engineering firm, getting an engineers salary. The janitor gets paid accordingly, the managers get paid accordingly, the vps and CEO gets paid accordingly. I have no expectations for the CEO to get paid my salary and vice versa. I don't expect the janitor to get paid my salary.
Some people would agree with you and some would not. The gap in salary discrepancy has grown enormously between the top tier in an organization when compared to the other tiers.
Frankly, I cannot fathom what one person can do to merit more than $100K per day. Could Disney find someone just as "effective" as Frank for half that salary? A quarter that salary? Was Michael Eisner (former CEO of Disney) the greatest thing since sliced bread?
Some people would agree with you and some would not. The gap in salary discrepancy has grown enormously between the top tier in an organization when compared to the other tiers.
Frankly, I cannot fathom what one person can do to merit more than $100K per day. Could Disney find someone just as "effective" as Frank for half that salary? A quarter that salary? Was Michael Eisner (former CEO of Disney) the greatest thing since sliced bread?
It’s a company though . If people don’t want to support Disney they don’t have to .
Nobody has to own the stock or buy their stuff or watch their films .
Sports salaries are nuts too but nobody has to buy tickets to the games etc .
You are to be commended for your fortitude. (Couldn't rep you again.)
Thank you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliRestoration
See, this is the tactic usually employed by proponents of UHC. "If employers aren't over paying employees what the market is offering, then taxpayers will foot the bill."
How about, no! People live with the consequences of their life choices. You want to drop out of school, get addicted to drugs, and not work 40 hours a week? Then guess what? You get to sleep under a bridge and eat out of a dumpster. That's equitable and fair.
Also in your model, you don't ever describe the consequences of the increased individual tax burden to give homeless drug addicts a free ride.
Why is that?
You're talking about homeless people. I was talking about people who already work 40 to 80 hours a week and still can't afford the rent.
First people complain because the homeless don't work, then they complain because people who do work don't have the skills to earn $40 an hour.
Somebody has to be the cashier, the McDonald's worker, or the call center employee. If everybody were to get the skills they needed for a high tech job, you'd be standing in line forever and unemployment would go over 50%.
Besides, many of those fast food workers and others in low wage jobs are already attending college for a degree. Does that magically make them immune from having to pay the bills?
Speaking of skills, garbage men can work part-time and make $100 a day. If we can pay them to pick up the trash, why can't we pay others a living wage?
And whether you like it or not, your taxes DO go to those people who are underpaid and needing social services because they don't make enough money working a full-time job. If you don't think people should be paid more, then you're on notice. You can't complain here on CD when your taxes go to support social services.
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.
