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.
... but it can be done IF the minimum wage is above the poverty level and affordable healthcare is provided.
I know that's what you want, but do you want what's not going to happen or something that's a good compromise?
What I mean is that if you look back at the Min Wage and adjust it for inflation, the peak was in 1968 when it was $1.60/hour. That would buy about what $10.60 buys today. If demands to increase it were couched in those terms, and then to avoid drama, it was increased every year in parallel with Social Security is ( to account for inflation ) then you are much more likely to get your way.
Once it gets set like that, then society can stop the argument about where the wage "needs to be." When a COLA was applied to a Social Security pension that put seniors above the poverty level. That's where the drama was stopped. ( Some people still want to argue, but most people know better. )
For working people with kids, there are lots of low-income tax programs that people need to get in touch with to increase their spendable income. I volunteered to do taxes with the VITA program and did lots of returns for people who walked out of there with thousands of dollars coming to them in tax credits.
I saw a calculation one time that a citizen of the city of NY who worked full time at the current Min Wage and took advantage of the tax code could make over $20/hour effective wages if they had a couple of kids. That's not welfare or food stamps, but work.
It's not a perfect system and it requires work on the recipients' part, but so does upping your job skills or getting a degree or a cert that qualifies someone for better than Min Wage work.[/quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWOH
... As for option #2 I can't really comment. I don't know enough about interest rates.
That's OK, he's pretty-much dead-nuts on that too.
The low interest rates are great for the investor class, but not much else. The people on the investment forum think the Fed is doing a GREAT job and should keep it up. This is much the same attitude that the French aristocracy had about how the King was doing before the guillotines were sharpened up.
I'm an investor too, but I'm not delusional enough to think that a booming stock market is a good substitute for a booming industrial base where people can get work at good wages and can go out and get another job if the one they are currently at sux.
The overwhelming people in the "underclass" who are just getting by on $8 an hour - aren't actually getting by on that much an hour. What isn't seen is how much many of those people are receiving in various government benefits... SNAP, WIC, TANF, Section 8, free lunches, etc...
Here's a graph to illustrate... a single mother with two kids making minimum wage ($14,500 a year) actually has more effective income than a family of four making $60,000.
I have a couple problems with increasing the minimum wage, namely that any increase in the minimum wage would just stoke unwanted inflation by causing a corresponding rise in prices or worse, significant job losses.
I know if a restaurant was forced to pay its servers $15 an hour, I wouldn't be tipping them a dime. I wouldn't have the money to do so... In fact, I might not have the money to eat out at all. The former just stiffs the server who probably made $15 an hour beforehand but now has to pay tax on all $15 whereas many tips are paid in cash.... but the latter calls into question the whole business because if enough people can't afford to eat there, the business closes.
Seattle is leading the way with their $15 minimum wage, and the casualties are starting to mount:
...Restaurants usually have a budget breakdown of about 36 percent for labor, 30 percent for food costs, and 30 percent to cover other operational costs. That leaves 4 percent for a profit margin. When labor costs shoot up to say 42 percent, something has to give.
Ohio is on the right track I think with indexing the minimum wage to inflation, as an effective way to keep it as a floor that shouldn't be dropped out from under. But raising it, without fixing the underlying crappy economic system (lack of manufacturing base, poor or mismatched job training in school, etc) will just cause job losses.
If the rise in the minimum wage were coupled with a fall in food stamp enrollment (up 70% during Obama's presidency to a record high 47 million) and other similar welfare programs, then I would be more likely to be on board with a minimum wage increase, if only because at least the federal government could get serious about tackling the budget deficit.
If the rise in the minimum wage were coupled with a fall in food stamp enrollment (up 70% during Obama's presidency to a record high 47 million) and other similar welfare programs, .....
Warning: Not an apologist for Obama.
" ... more individuals were added to the program while George W. Bush was in office than have enrolled under Obama’s presidency: Under Bush, the program grew by 14.7 million individuals; under Obama so far, it’s grown by 14.2 million, and, as of October, was declining. ... "
I am so tormented by trying to decide who was / is worse -- Bush or Obama. There is so much to dislike about both of them. However, when it comes to entitlements, Bush absolutely trashes Obama for badness.
The minimum wage needs to be adjusted to 1968 levels adjusted for inflation and then indexed so that it can be removed as a talking point.
Now if we could adjust the military budget to 1968 levels adjusted for inflation we could talk about balancing the budget.
Such an adjustment though, would be bad for Dayton since the Military Industrial Complex is the only thing keeping the economy afloat.
I know that's what you want, but do you want what's not going to happen or something that's a good compromise?
What I mean is that if you look back at the Min Wage and adjust it for inflation, the peak was in 1968 when it was $1.60/hour. That would buy about what $10.60 buys today. If demands to increase it were couched in those terms, and then to avoid drama, it was increased every year in parallel with Social Security is ( to account for inflation ) then you are much more likely to get your way.
Once it gets set like that, then society can stop the argument about where the wage "needs to be." When a COLA was applied to a Social Security pension that put seniors above the poverty level. That's where the drama was stopped. ( Some people still want to argue, but most people know better. )
For working people with kids, there are lots of low-income tax programs that people need to get in touch with to increase their spendable income. I volunteered to do taxes with the VITA program and did lots of returns for people who walked out of there with thousands of dollars coming to them in tax credits.
I saw a calculation one time that a citizen of the city of NY who worked full time at the current Min Wage and took advantage of the tax code could make over $20/hour effective wages if they had a couple of kids. That's not welfare or food stamps, but work.
It's not a perfect system and it requires work on the recipients' part, but so does upping your job skills or getting a degree or a cert that qualifies someone for better than Min Wage work.
That's OK, he's pretty-much dead-nuts on that too.
The low interest rates are great for the investor class, but not much else. The people on the investment forum think the Fed is doing a GREAT job and should keep it up. This is much the same attitude that the French aristocracy had about how the King was doing before the guillotines were sharpened up.
I'm an investor too, but I'm not delusional enough to think that a booming stock market is a good substitute for a booming industrial base where people can get work at good wages and can go out and get another job if the one they are currently at sux.[/quote]
Yep, I completely agree. Why was a minimum wage that was tied to inflation with yearly adjustments never set before? Because you are right, the argument about where the wage "needs to be" isn't a great argument to have. It's a hygiene factor, not a motivator (like abortion or war). People need to have earnings to live.
And really? That's quite a bit of cash for the NYC citizen, although converting that into real purchasing power would probably put them about at what someone working at minimum wage would make here. I wonder how many people in that income bracket know how to take advantage of the tax code enough to make that wage?
Also, that last point you make is particularly crucial! So many companies out there aren't hiring. They are figuring out ways to shed positions. And to top it off, hundreds of qualified applicants are applying for each open position - the internet boosts the business world in both these respects. Not only do they have access to a near infinite talent pool, but they also have excellent technology to automate processes and tasks so no one even has to be hired in the first place!
The overwhelming people in the "underclass" who are just getting by on $8 an hour - aren't actually getting by on that much an hour. What isn't seen is how much many of those people are receiving in various government benefits... SNAP, WIC, TANF, Section 8, free lunches, etc...
Here's a graph to illustrate... a single mother with two kids making minimum wage ($14,500 a year) actually has more effective income than a family of four making $60,000.
Nice graphic and stats. I still find it hard to believe this is the case though, if anything just because it takes a lot of effort to apply for all those subsidies and I'm sure there are a lot of people out there that don't know how to take advantage of them all (of course, I'm sure there are plenty more out there that know how not only to utilize these but game the system too)
That being said, a minimum living wage would get hundreds of thousands of people off government welfare programs. Or on reduced subsidies, which would save the government millions.
Quote:
I have a couple problems with increasing the minimum wage, namely that any increase in the minimum wage would just stoke unwanted inflation by causing a corresponding rise in prices or worse, significant job losses.
I know if a restaurant was forced to pay its servers $15 an hour, I wouldn't be tipping them a dime. I wouldn't have the money to do so... In fact, I might not have the money to eat out at all. The former just stiffs the server who probably made $15 an hour beforehand but now has to pay tax on all $15 whereas many tips are paid in cash.... but the latter calls into question the whole business because if enough people can't afford to eat there, the business closes.
Seattle is leading the way with their $15 minimum wage, and the casualties are starting to mount:
Yeah, a $15/hr minimum is very high. Doubt it would be feasible in Ohio. But for the coasts, where the cost of living can be two or three times higher than it is in OH, it makes sense. They need that money just to pay for housing, especially in places like SF and Seattle. Here's a great article detailing that effect in consideration of IKEA's minimum wage increases. Not surprisingly, their West Chester location was deemed to have the lowest cost of living, so that location maintains a minimum wage of less than $9 while other stores have minimums over $13/hr:
As for Seattle and the job losses, sorry to hear it but everyone anticipated there would be some. A nationwide minimum wage of $10/hr will result in about 50,000 lost jobs according to the Congressional Budget Office. But many companies, including McDonald's and Walmart and IKEA, are seeing the value of paying workers more and increasing their wages ahead of a government mandate. It helps them get better workers, keep their workers off subsidies, drive better work ethic, decrease turnover, and be a better citizen within their communities. A lot of companies with great customer service, like Costco, have been practicing this for years already.
So really, for those who need a job to live it will ensure they can get one where they can, while for people who don't need a job (like high schoolers) they get forced out of the market. Because the majority of minimum wage workers aren't teenagers and college students. The majority are middle aged women trying to provide for their families.
Quote:
Ohio is on the right track I think with indexing the minimum wage to inflation, as an effective way to keep it as a floor that shouldn't be dropped out from under. But raising it, without fixing the underlying crappy economic system (lack of manufacturing base, poor or mismatched job training in school, etc) will just cause job losses.
If the rise in the minimum wage were coupled with a fall in food stamp enrollment (up 70% during Obama's presidency to a record high 47 million) and other similar welfare programs, then I would be more likely to be on board with a minimum wage increase, if only because at least the federal government could get serious about tackling the budget deficit.
Agreed, agreed, and agreed. This is exactly what it is intended to do. Reduce subsidies, get people who need to work jobs where they can live off their earnings.
I assume you would also be a fan of the free community college proposal. Because I can't imagine a better way to fix the underlying problems and get people the technical training they need. Also it would completely gut the need for a lot of subsidies like Pell Grants, etc. since there would be absolutely no reason why students would not be spending their first two years at community college.
My opinion on community college being free is mixed, because if you make something free it removes all incentive to treat it with respect. Tragedy of the commons.
You already have at Sinclair where people will drop their courses as soon as they get their grant money refund checks and go blow the money elsewhere... federal law be damned, they couldn't care less. The typical entry level class anecdotally will lose as much as a third of its students before the semester ends for this reason.
Sending more people to school isn't going to necessarily solve the problem, either. We've been told for decades now that if you go to college, you'll get your golden ticket punched. Well, that's not the case, and you now have millions of English, philosophy, and psychology majors out there who are working at the nearest Starbucks.
A more measured proposal - perhaps offering reduced or free community college in select in-demand fields (the STEM fields come to mind) could be a better return on investment. But it should be under the stipulation that zero dollars are ever refunded to the actual student, surplus can be spent on books but otherwise must be used for future education. In essence, we need to remove the incentive to enroll, get a grant, drop the class, and make off with the rest of the money.
But, with that in mind, give part time and nontraditional students a chance to get on board with this program, rather than tying it to a number of years (such as two or four), instead tie it to number of credits earned... allowing as much time as needed for people to work their way through college.
My opinion on community college being free is mixed, because if you make something free it removes all incentive to treat it with respect. Tragedy of the commons.
You already have at Sinclair where people will drop their courses as soon as they get their grant money refund checks and go blow the money elsewhere... federal law be damned, they couldn't care less. The typical entry level class anecdotally will lose as much as a third of its students before the semester ends for this reason.
Sending more people to school isn't going to necessarily solve the problem, either. We've been told for decades now that if you go to college, you'll get your golden ticket punched. Well, that's not the case, and you now have millions of English, philosophy, and psychology majors out there who are working at the nearest Starbucks.
A more measured proposal - perhaps offering reduced or free community college in select in-demand fields (the STEM fields come to mind) could be a better return on investment. But it should be under the stipulation that zero dollars are ever refunded to the actual student, surplus can be spent on books but otherwise must be used for future education. In essence, we need to remove the incentive to enroll, get a grant, drop the class, and make off with the rest of the money.
But, with that in mind, give part time and nontraditional students a chance to get on board with this program, rather than tying it to a number of years (such as two or four), instead tie it to number of credits earned... allowing as much time as needed for people to work their way through college.
Tragedy of the Commons - yeah that would be the risk of this proposal. One of my big hopes at least if this proposal happens is that the need for federal aid towards an associate's degree at least would vanish. I suppose the system could be gamed by applying for federal aid for a four year institution, but if any citizen could walk in to their local community college and register for a class (assuming they met the prerequisites, are mentally stable, etc.) it seems to take money out of the equation.
Also have to agree on what kinds of degrees it can go towards, at least at onset. You are right, if someone is working a no skill job right now and wants to better themselves, getting an associate's in English isn't going to help (most likely).
But yeah, I bolded the part of your statement that I really like. College shouldn't be tied to money, at least not this level of it. That alone would take care of the issues IMO.
You already have at Sinclair where people will drop their courses as soon as they get their grant money refund checks and go blow the money elsewhere... federal law be damned, they couldn't care less. The typical entry level class anecdotally will lose as much as a third of its students before the semester ends for this reason.
I saw this sort of thing at the community college in the city where I used to live.
Even in the STEM classes I was taking ( C++, C#, java, SQL, photoshop, et al ... ) would empty out after a couple of weeks.
These excellent courses with excellent equipment would only cost $40 plus the cost of a book.
$40 or $100 is the same as free, IMO. The cost of attending college is the cost to live such as food, rent, travel and tuition is pretty marginal in the big picture.
It wouldn't be that hard to flag someone who gets a loan or grant and then bails. Make them go for another semester without aid and get a C average before they become eligible. If they really did have some sort of life-changing event happen that prevented them from completing the semester then they can argue that for one and only one exemption with a financial aid officer.
I don't see any reason to reduce a tuition cost from less than $100 to zero. If you can't come up with a few hundred dollars every several months for tuition, you don't really want it that bad. I think the facilities should be reserved for those who intend to complete the course.
I saw this sort of thing at the community college in the city where I used to live.
Even in the STEM classes I was taking ( C++, C#, java, SQL, photoshop, et al ... ) would empty out after a couple of weeks.
These excellent courses with excellent equipment would only cost $40 plus the cost of a book.
$40 or $100 is the same as free, IMO. The cost of attending college is the cost to live such as food, rent, travel and tuition is pretty marginal in the big picture.
It wouldn't be that hard to flag someone who gets a loan or grant and then bails. Make them go for another semester without aid and get a C average before they become eligible. If they really did have some sort of life-changing event happen that prevented them from completing the semester then they can argue that for one and only one exemption with a financial aid officer.
I don't see any reason to reduce a tuition cost from less than $100 to zero. If you can't come up with a few hundred dollars every several months for tuition, you don't really want it that bad. I think the facilities should be reserved for those who intend to complete the course.
Good point. Eliminating the students' stake in the game might take their motivation out of completing it entirely.
The only worry would be for someone like the (idealized) McDonald's, etc. worker with the two-hour long bus commute, multiple jobs to make ends meet, etc. This person probably could not scrape up a few bucks for college if they literally have to budget to the last cent just to survive. But then again this kind of person probably could not easily figure out a good way to go to college either.
The only worry would be for someone like the (idealized) McDonald's, etc. worker with the two-hour long bus commute, multiple jobs to make ends meet, etc. This person probably could not scrape up a few bucks for college ...
They can't go full-time, but could always take one course. Almost any employer will accommodate someone's part-time school schedule. If not, at the min wage level, people can still job-hop.
There is always enough time and money to take a course. If someone thinks they can't then throwing a couple thousand at such person would not do any good, they would drop out. I don't see how the theoretical McD's or any min wage person not able to take just one Sinclair course would be able to do so even if they were making $15/hr.
Once you have a couple of semesters under your belt, you are going to be worth more than the minimum wage and can accelerate the process. Many people have graduated after going to classes for ten years. You take one or two courses a semester and just keep it up. I have a 12-year engineering degree with lots of paid internships and part-time jobs. I saw lots of people graduate ahead of me, but not with only about $5k in student loan debt unless mommy and daddy paid for it ( just about all my classmates ).
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.
