|
|
Wages in the US
By Jetackuu 2014-02-16 23:17:11
Phoenix.Amandarius said: »Hip Hop has destroyed more homes than any CEO ever did and her fortune is a direct result.
I wouldn't say just hip hop, but I would agree that music in general does.
Sylph.Systematicchaos said: »Minimum talent nets you minimum wages.
I’ve seen several mentions of the fast food industry in this thread, and if McDonald’s has come to be considered as a “career option” in this country, then we, my friends, have far bigger problems at hand.
Such as looking down on people for the jobs that they perform?
Is there something particularly wrong with being a farm hand? A shoe salesman? A plumber/electrician/carpenter/general contractor? A welder? A rancher? An electronic component assembler? A seamstress/tailor? A photographer? A fast-food worker? A doctor? A lawyer (all jokes aside)? A janitor?
I'm in no way saying that you have to pay all of the above equally.
But you shouldn't be essentially stating that these people are worthless, or bring little to no value to the table.
Some of those are worthy career options, but some jobs are not careers. They are jobs better suited to high-school age workers, or older people simply working for health insurance or to supplement what they already have. Working for McDonalds should in no way, shape, or form, be able to feed a family of 4, or 2 for that matter, unless they are ordering from you.
Why shouldn't it? [/spoiler]
Because 16 year olds can do it and there is no way I am going to spend 30 dollars for a cheese burger so everyone can make 50k a year....
I will agree with have major income issues. It is cheaper where I live to be on welfare than it is to drive 25 miles to work each day for 32 hours a week and have to pay for a car, insurance, and gas at 7.50 an hour, however that being said the issue is not easy to solve.
There's been no empirical evidence suggesting that a raise in the minimum wage creates inflation, your argument is pure conjecture, and reactionary and not really based on facts.
No the issue is not easy to solve, but one of the steps is to stop subsidizing corporations because they don't pay people enough, and raising the minimum wage is just one of those steps.
I worked a bunch of shitty jobs before I do what I do now, and I'll tell you what: most of the people I worked with were adults who had families to support, very little weren't, and they had such bad work ethic that they didn't last long anyway.
Oh and as to the music bit: how do you agree to that? there's no evidence supporting that concept.
edit: You don't realize it but you just presented a point as to why the cost of fast food wouldn't raise that dramatically: because then people wouldn't buy it.
By Fumiku 2014-02-16 23:53:57
Phoenix.Amandarius said: »Hip Hop has destroyed more homes than any CEO ever did and her fortune is a direct result.
I wouldn't say just hip hop, but I would agree that music in general does.
Sylph.Systematicchaos said: »Minimum talent nets you minimum wages.
I’ve seen several mentions of the fast food industry in this thread, and if McDonald’s has come to be considered as a “career option” in this country, then we, my friends, have far bigger problems at hand.
Such as looking down on people for the jobs that they perform?
Is there something particularly wrong with being a farm hand? A shoe salesman? A plumber/electrician/carpenter/general contractor? A welder? A rancher? An electronic component assembler? A seamstress/tailor? A photographer? A fast-food worker? A doctor? A lawyer (all jokes aside)? A janitor?
I'm in no way saying that you have to pay all of the above equally.
But you shouldn't be essentially stating that these people are worthless, or bring little to no value to the table.
Some of those are worthy career options, but some jobs are not careers. They are jobs better suited to high-school age workers, or older people simply working for health insurance or to supplement what they already have. Working for McDonalds should in no way, shape, or form, be able to feed a family of 4, or 2 for that matter, unless they are ordering from you.
Why shouldn't it? [/spoiler]
Because 16 year olds can do it and there is no way I am going to spend 30 dollars for a cheese burger so everyone can make 50k a year....
I will agree with have major income issues. It is cheaper where I live to be on welfare than it is to drive 25 miles to work each day for 32 hours a week and have to pay for a car, insurance, and gas at 7.50 an hour, however that being said the issue is not easy to solve.
There's been no empirical evidence suggesting that a raise in the minimum wage creates inflation, your argument is pure conjecture, and reactionary and not really based on facts.
No the issue is not easy to solve, but one of the steps is to stop subsidizing corporations because they don't pay people enough, and raising the minimum wage is just one of those steps.
I worked a bunch of shitty jobs before I do what I do now, and I'll tell you what: most of the people I worked with were adults who had families to support, very little weren't, and they had such bad work ethic that they didn't last long anyway.
Oh and as to the music bit: how do you agree to that? there's no evidence supporting that concept.
edit: You don't realize it but you just presented a point as to why the cost of fast food wouldn't raise that dramatically: because then people wouldn't buy it.
I know it wouldn't raise that dramatically. Let's try something here. How much do you think people should make to be able to support a family of 4?
By Jetackuu 2014-02-17 00:15:24
I know it wouldn't raise that dramatically. Let's try something here. How much do you think people should make to be able to support a family of 4?
about $18+-/hour, depending on where you live.
edit: for reference; that's about 2.5x the minimum wage.
By Fumiku 2014-02-17 00:23:29
You think people should make 18 dollars working McD's?
[+]
By Jetackuu 2014-02-17 00:27:42
You think people should make 18 dollars working McD's? I don't think people should be making less than a living wage.
Then again I also don't think companies should favor unskilled labor to automation.
But to answer your question: no I don't have a problem with companies paying their employees a living wage. Then again when it comes to McDonald's they should also give their employees a fixed schedule, but they don't do that either.
Is it really that much to ask for the companies to pay their employees so the government doesn't have to subsidize their workforce?
Or do you enjoy your taxes going to subsidize their profits? While they skirt a lot of their taxes because they're "job creators."
[+]
By Fumiku 2014-02-17 00:31:35
No I agree with you on that.
But now let me ask this, once you pay 18 dollars an hour to Mcd people.
What do you do with all the people earning above min wage to 18 dollars an hour? should an 18 dollar and hour employee now make 45 dollars an hour?
[+]
By Fumiku 2014-02-17 00:35:18
For the record, for mcd's alone that would cut into their profit margin by 7.5 million dollars (est) You don't think they wont raise prices to compensate for that? ( I know it's small change compared to their 1.5 billion dollar profit. )
By Jetackuu 2014-02-17 00:37:10
For the record, for mcd's alone that would cut into their profit margin by 7.5 million dollars (est) You don't think they wont raise prices to compensate for that? ( I know it's small change compared to their 1.5 billion dollar profit. ) should they? not really, would they? probably, but they can't that much.
I'm not saying to do it all at once either, you'd have to do it gradually or people would get stupid with their money.
Honestly I'd like to throw some banking regulation and some savings incentives in there if I were doing it, you know: to make people smarter about their money, instead of just giving them an influx of cash that they'd just burn through (while that would be great for the economy), it'd be bad for them.
By Fumiku 2014-02-17 00:38:10
What about the employee making 18 dollars an hour you just screwed over?
By Jetackuu 2014-02-17 00:39:33
No I agree with you on that.
But now let me ask this, once you pay 18 dollars an hour to Mcd people.
What do you do with all the people earning above min wage to 18 dollars an hour? should an 18 dollar and hour employee now make 45 dollars an hour?
You have a good question there sir, I changed jobs a few times during the last increases and was always making more than the increases, so I'm not sure what they do once you hit in between. I don't really feel bad for the CEO's though when they make millions of dollars-billions of dollars/year when their employees barely make 5 figures.
I could sit here and pull up the wage disparities from decades ago and claim I just want to get back to those good 'ol times, but I'm lazy, and a bit tired.
By Fumiku 2014-02-17 00:55:01
There are not enough jobs for people in this country. People don't make enough money to get back and forth to work on a minimum wage job. I won't argue those standards.
What I will argue is that just increasing minimum wage itself isn't the answer. As you said they will increase prices to compensate for a 7.5 million loss in revenue. That is inflation. Significant? No it's like 1% studies have shown if you did an increase, but it is still inflation.
Supply and demand is a double edge sword. You just gave everyone 18 dollars an hour, so now they have more money to compete for better places to live along with everyone else. Now the landlords can charge more. Demand becomes greater and the people that want to live in that area will pay more to get the place.
If you want to combat something, combat inflation else wise we will continue to chase this spiral to the top.
Free market has it's flaws. I will never argue that it's perfect. Unless you plan on putting major regulation in place, I don't see a better system. I am not trying to justify what a Ceo makes, or say that people get what they deserve.
I will say I think it's a tragedy what we say the value of our workers are.
[+]
By Jetackuu 2014-02-17 01:00:32
There are not enough jobs for people in this country. People don't make enough money to get back and forth to work on a minimum wage job. I won't argue those standards.
What I will argue is that just increasing minimum wage itself isn't the answer. As you said they will increase prices to compensate for a 7.5 million loss in revenue. That is inflation. Significant? No it's like 1% studies have shown if you did an increase, but it is still inflation.
Supply and demand is a double edge sword. You just gave everyone 18 dollars an hour, so now they have more money to compete for better places to live along with everyone else. Now the landlords can charge more. Demand becomes greater and the people that want to live in that area will pay more to get the place.
If you want to combat something, combat inflation else wise we will continue to chase this spiral to the top.
Free market has it's flaws. I will never argue that it's perfect. Unless you plan on putting major regulation in place, I don't see a better system. I am not trying to justify what a Ceo makes, or say that people get what they deserve.
I will say I think it's a tragedy what we say the value of our workers are.
I never said they would increase it, I said they could, and no that is not inflation, it's just one aspect of it.
and that's why rent caps should be in place, there's no reason that the rent I pay should be as high as it is for what it is, it should be $200 cheaper, but the landlords are gauging the prices, and that should be illegal.
We don't have a free market, we have corporatism.
We can't have a free market, nor should we, but if you want to level it to what people think a free market is, you would have to take the fact that people need to work for a living/to support families out of the picture, and then the job market would change drastically, however as we cannot do that yet, we need to regulate said market.
By Fumiku 2014-02-17 01:06:42
There are not enough jobs for people in this country. People don't make enough money to get back and forth to work on a minimum wage job. I won't argue those standards.
What I will argue is that just increasing minimum wage itself isn't the answer. As you said they will increase prices to compensate for a 7.5 million loss in revenue. That is inflation. Significant? No it's like 1% studies have shown if you did an increase, but it is still inflation.
Supply and demand is a double edge sword. You just gave everyone 18 dollars an hour, so now they have more money to compete for better places to live along with everyone else. Now the landlords can charge more. Demand becomes greater and the people that want to live in that area will pay more to get the place.
If you want to combat something, combat inflation else wise we will continue to chase this spiral to the top.
Free market has it's flaws. I will never argue that it's perfect. Unless you plan on putting major regulation in place, I don't see a better system. I am not trying to justify what a Ceo makes, or say that people get what they deserve.
I will say I think it's a tragedy what we say the value of our workers are.
I never said they would increase it, I said they could, and no that is not inflation, it's just one aspect of it.
and that's why rent caps should be in place, there's no reason that the rent I pay should be as high as it is for what it is, it should be $200 cheaper, but the landlords are gauging the prices, and that should be illegal.
We don't have a free market, we have corporatism.
We can't have a free market, nor should we, but if you want to level it to what people think a free market is, you would have to take the fact that people need to work for a living/to support families out of the picture, and then the job market would change drastically, however as we cannot do that yet, we need to regulate said market.
I would agree that people that are so afraid of socialism that they are blind to corporations holding on to monopolies/oligopolies which like socialism is a form of control through as you said corporatism.
The landlord wouldn't be gouging btw, most people will offer a little more to rent if they know another buyer is interested. Who wouldn't take that offer?
By Fumiku 2014-02-17 01:09:22
I just see what you want to do as something very complicated, how do you determine the worth of the land? How do you judge fair market value to set those standards in place?
By Jetackuu 2014-02-17 01:11:06
There are not enough jobs for people in this country. People don't make enough money to get back and forth to work on a minimum wage job. I won't argue those standards.
What I will argue is that just increasing minimum wage itself isn't the answer. As you said they will increase prices to compensate for a 7.5 million loss in revenue. That is inflation. Significant? No it's like 1% studies have shown if you did an increase, but it is still inflation.
Supply and demand is a double edge sword. You just gave everyone 18 dollars an hour, so now they have more money to compete for better places to live along with everyone else. Now the landlords can charge more. Demand becomes greater and the people that want to live in that area will pay more to get the place.
If you want to combat something, combat inflation else wise we will continue to chase this spiral to the top.
Free market has it's flaws. I will never argue that it's perfect. Unless you plan on putting major regulation in place, I don't see a better system. I am not trying to justify what a Ceo makes, or say that people get what they deserve.
I will say I think it's a tragedy what we say the value of our workers are.
I never said they would increase it, I said they could, and no that is not inflation, it's just one aspect of it.
and that's why rent caps should be in place, there's no reason that the rent I pay should be as high as it is for what it is, it should be $200 cheaper, but the landlords are gauging the prices, and that should be illegal.
We don't have a free market, we have corporatism.
We can't have a free market, nor should we, but if you want to level it to what people think a free market is, you would have to take the fact that people need to work for a living/to support families out of the picture, and then the job market would change drastically, however as we cannot do that yet, we need to regulate said market.
I would agree that people that are so afraid of socialism that they are blind to corporations holding on to monopolies/oligopolies which like socialism is a form of control through as you said corporatism.
The landlord wouldn't be gouging btw, most people will offer a little more to rent if they know another buyer is interested. Who wouldn't take that offer?
Then your personal definition must be out of the norm, but it does fir the textbook definition. Rent in this city is above fair market value, it's been artificially increased because a small handful of people own most of the property in the city and they can get away with it, as the alternative is to buy.
After next year I plan to try to purchase some land, so I just have to hold out a bit longer. I just need to pay down my outstanding credit and beg a family member to cosign for me.
By Jetackuu 2014-02-17 01:12:35
I just see what you want to do as something very complicated, how do you determine the worth of the land? How do you judge fair market value to set those standards in place?
The land is already set, and as far as equal priced land in other areas with similar population densities the cost of living is a good bit higher, I can crunch the actual numbers tomorrow if you'd like.
But this is getting to be one hell of a tangent.
By Fumiku 2014-02-17 01:16:07
Stopping artificial inflation would be extremely difficult. When two people go after a piece of property in a city for building you can start off in the hole very quickly.
By Fumiku 2014-02-17 01:17:39
I just see what you want to do as something very complicated, how do you determine the worth of the land? How do you judge fair market value to set those standards in place?
The land is already set, and as far as equal priced land in other areas with similar population densities the cost of living is a good bit higher, I can crunch the actual numbers tomorrow if you'd like.
But this is getting to be one hell of a tangent.
Lol i am stuck in a hotel for the night with nothing to do. So far you are my only friend to talk too /sadface..... I don't need you to crunch numbers lol. I am just having fun shooting the ***with someone.
 Bahamut.Kara
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2014-02-17 01:53:13
I find your chart of real median familiy income vs productivity interesting.
I would assume the increase in productivity is due to automation?
Productivity is the amount of output per unit of input. In that graph it is measured in GDP per capita. 1947 is the base year and then percent change is used to calculate the GDP per capita adjusted to 2011 dollars, same process for real median household income.
decent overview of labor productivity:
Quote: Economic growth in a country can be ascribed either to increased employment or to more effective work by those who are employed. The latter effect can be described through statistics on labour productivity. Labour productivity therefore is a key measure of economic performance. The understanding of the driving forces behind it, in particular the accumulation of machinery and equipment, improvements in organization as well as physical and institutional infrastructures, improved health and skills of workers (“human capital”) and the generation of new technology.
...
Labour productivity estimates can serve to develop labour market policies and monitor their effects. For example, high labour productivity is often associated with high levels or particular types of human capital, indicating priorities for specific education and training policies. Likewise, trends in productivity estimates can be used to understand the effects of wage settlements on rates of inflation or to ensure that such settlements will compensate workers for (part of) realized productivity improvements.
Finally, productivity measures can contribute to the understanding of how labour market performance affects living standards. When the intensity of labour utilization - the average number of annual working hours per head of the population - is low, the creation of employment opportunities is an important means of raising per capita income in addition to productivity growth.1 In Europe, for example, where, given lower per capita income levels, productivity levels are relatively close to the United States, living standards can increase through higher labour utilization, for instance by encouraging a higher labour force participation rate or by encouraging workers to work more hours. In contrast, when labour intensity is already high, for example in East Asia, increasing productivity is essential to improving living standards. In any case, increasing labour force participation is at best a transitional source of growth depending on the rate of population growth and the age structure of the population. In the long run, it is the productivity of labour which determines the rise in per capita income.
Productivity represents the amount of output per unit of input. In this chapter, output is measured as gross domestic product (GDP), which represents the compensation for input of services from capital (including depreciation) and labour directly engaged in the production. The GDP concepts for the aggregate economy are expressed at market prices, which reflect the market value of the output produced.
Labour productivity growth may be due to either increased efficiency in the use of labour, without more of other inputs, or because each worker works with more of the other inputs, such as physical capital, human capital or intermediate inputs.
The GDP in the US has grown due to technological improvements, a shift to more service industry employment, high levels of consumer consumption (since JFK era), large increase of financial products created and sold, IP, trade agreements, etc. Many factors.
[+]
By Thunderz 2014-02-17 02:45:26
O.o
On-topic: I can see why people are not too interested in unskilled labor being paid more (bringing them closer/or on par to semi/skilled workers). Since the perspective is anyone can do that job and its not suppose to be a career, etc.
For one, Why can't it be a career? Some people are not lucky in life and the only thing they can get are those positions. The second problem is when those individuals hit retirement age they won't have enough $$ saved to have a sustainable retirement *401k* CPP(Canada Pension Plan) and guess who has to pay for that? yes we are stuck padding their retirement because sh!t employers never gave them any benefits.
Honestly I think if we forced employers to provide full benefits and a legit retirement plan to all their employees... wages themselves would not be a huge fuss.
Rent paid, food on the table and a cozy retirement is basically what everyone wants
[+]
Server: Sylph
Game: FFXI
Posts: 765
By Sylph.Kuwoobie 2014-02-17 02:59:14
Minimum wage workers are America's equivalent to those who work in debtor camps in third world countries. The only difference is the amount of *** we swallow to pretend it's normal for a growing population of adults to have nowhere else to turn to when looking for a job.
This is the part where everyone shrills their 1950's Game of Life fantasy about "working hard" and "going to school" and all the difference it makes despite the fact there are now three times as many people and hardly a tenth of the jobs available due to outsourcing and automation.
Now let's all play tiniest violin for the great "job creators" who have homogenized American business into a handful of name brands and have monopolized every possible market-- who simply cannot afford to do business unless it means cutting corners and screwing their employees, while they enjoy sitting on top of more money than 90% of country's population... combined.
We have all been made into suckers. Have fun living with your kids until the day you die, and their kids-- while you work your *** off at your job you'll never retire from to support them all because employer knows they can always convince you that you deserve less.
[+]
Server: Sylph
Game: FFXI
Posts: 765
By Sylph.Kuwoobie 2014-02-17 03:09:32
Oh yeah, and I love the bit about how the purpose of business is to single-mindedly maximize profit, damned be everyone else.
Your cult-like devotion is astounding.
Server: Sylph
Game: FFXI
Posts: 15066
By Sylph.Tigerwoods 2014-02-17 03:18:53
Assuming people who use "I make minimum wage so I'll do a ***job" get fired and replaced with competent people, I see no drawbacks to an increase in minimum wage.
I just don't sit well with the thought that someone who can't place a patty in between two pieces of bread getting more money though (like when you go to McDonalds and even though the patty is smaller than the bun, the patty is protruding 2-3 inches out of the bun on one side. Like seriously did you even try?
 Cerberus.Kvazz
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 5345
By Cerberus.Kvazz 2014-02-17 04:04:02
You think people should make 18 dollars working McD's? They earn way more than that at McD in Norway.
Edit:
I know the economy is way different here vs US, but not having a minimum wage here seems to work fairly well.
By Fumiku 2014-02-17 04:08:06
You think people should make 18 dollars working McD's? They earn way more than that at McD in Norway
Really? What's the economy like in Norway?
Bahamut.Kara
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2014-02-17 04:11:44
You think people should make 18 dollars working McD's? They earn way more than that at McD in Norway.
Edit:
I know the economy is way different here vs US, but not having a minimum wage here seems to work fairly well. They earn more in Denmark too, with no minimum wage. But Scandinavia has a different perspective than the US.
Cerberus.Kvazz
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 5345
By Cerberus.Kvazz 2014-02-17 04:14:55
You think people should make 18 dollars working McD's? They earn way more than that at McD in Norway.
Edit:
I know the economy is way different here vs US, but not having a minimum wage here seems to work fairly well. They earn more in Denmark too, with no minimum wage. But Scandinavia has a different perspective than the US.
Yeah, we let people have a fairly shitty job and still make enough money to have a life :P
[+]
Bahamut.Kara
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2014-02-17 04:23:58
Really? What's the economy like in Norway? Norway is doing well. Scandinavia, in general, has a balanced economy with a combination of private and state owned businesses. But like I said the perspective of how life should be for everyone is dramatically different between the US and Scandinavia.
Median household income, Labor productivity, and unemployment rate for countries throughout the world.
Yeah, we let people have a fairly shitty job and still make enough money to have a life :P I prefer the quality of life, but it is vastly different from what is taught and encouraged in the US.
[+]
By fonewear 2014-02-17 08:40:50
So basically corporations are evil and they should be ashamed to give you a job.
[+]
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 422
By Asura.Ivykyori 2014-02-17 08:42:28
Rent paid, food on the table and a cozy retirement is basically what everyone wants
Exactly.
There are so many people working multiple minimum wage jobs, and still have problems paying the bills. And welfare? These families don't qualify, because according to the state, they make too much.
I personally would rather have one job that pays enough so that I can have my bills paid and live comfortably AND have time to have a life outside of work, than to have 3 jobs that barely pays the bills and you're pretty much at work constantly--no time for kids, no time for relationships, etc.
I'm not for raising the wages too much, but it should correlate with the cost of living. If my rent costs $2,000 a month (this is typical in NY and LA), and I'm only making 1800 a month spanned between 3 jobs, I'm kinda screwed.
http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/371175/federal-minimum-wage-too-high-long-term-unemployed-reihan-salam
Wealthy suggest a training wage under minimum wage to "stimulate" hiring and training of long term unemployed...
The real issue on bottom line profits are that consumer spending is flat-lined. This leads to business growing profits on the backs of employees with lower wages, less or no benefits, and only offering part time work. If a business is suffering from a lack of business caused by a lack of consumer spending, lowering the wage to $4 (training wage) an hour won't create any more jobs because business still isn't experience any increase in consumer spending. Where is the money coming from to hire new workers ? Instead business would just exploit this, replacing good paying existing jobs with lower paying jobs to streamline their profit margin. On the flip side, if the basic cost of living is $14 an hour for a single person working a full-time job as it is in most states, raising the minimum wage to anything less than this basic cost of living will also result in only negative consequences, ie. jobs cuts, reducing of hours, higher consumer prices, because still there is no increase in consumer spending for business to afford that. It is only after wage is higher than the basic cost of living that there would be an increase in business through consumer spending which could offset such a raise in wage. To be clear .... if it costs $14 an hour working a full-time job just for the basics in cost of living, they can raise the wage to $13 an hour and the only business that will benefit from that wage increase are landlords, banks, utility companies, transportation, and the tax man. The rest of the businesses out there are SOL because consumers still won't have one penny to spend stimulating the economy. This issue at hand is not an issue of class inequality, ie. rich vs. poor, it is an issue of inequality in wage vs. cost of living. Minimum wage is as counter-productive as the cost of living and they have no problem with the cost of living rising every year. They have allowed this problem to occur and have let it get out of hand. You can't fix this with education so everyone has a college degree because the payoff on that after a person pays off the debt of that education and is actually contributing to economy growth won't have results for decades. You also can't fix this problem with subsidies and bailouts, the ONLY solution is for wage to be higher than the cost of living so the result is massive consumer spending and real economic growth.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2013USpn_13ps2n_400010
Reason for using "~" is these figures (%) change quarterly and this is for general ideal.
The US government spends (Not including Medical, since my personal belief is everyone should have medical care) ~2.6% of the ~$16 Trillion (2.1% GDP impoverish family medical welfare, to make a point) ~416 Billion/yr (2.6%) & 336 Billion/yr. (2.1%). Also which is not listed under welfare spending but rather "Agriculture" spending are the food stamp programs which amount to ~80 billion/yr. totaling ~832 Billion/yr.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/federal-food-stamp-program-spent-record-804b-fy-2012
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm
The poverty guidelines in the US. are roughly $12k/yr. Single +4k/yr. per additional household member. This is the equivalent to having a part time job(32 hours a week) with no benefits at minimum wage. Consider ~15% of the US lives in poverty, with a population of 314 Million, nearly 47 million people live in poverty which in turn creates the need and dependency of social welfare. 22% of these citizens are children who have no recourse for their situation. Leaving ~36.5 million working age Americans in the pits - dependency.The government spends nearly $17-18k/yr. per individual person in poverty. This does not include tax subsidies for programs like EIC which pays out about 1.2 Billion a year to low income families with dependent children. This is small dent in the big picture. Link for reading.
http://www.pewstates.org/projects/stateline/headlines/a-renewed-push-for-earned-income-tax-credit-in-states-85899539729
Getting to the point, if we where to take the over 22k/yr. spent in welfare services and divert them into a living wage subsidy supporting a higher base minimum wage of nearly 2x ($14.5) the current minimum wage for persons who are working age (18+) [maybe keep lower minimum wage($7.25) for ages 15-17 who are restricted to part time and often live as a dependent]. we would in turn begin to nullify the need for such large social welfare. as this wage would create independent earning as well as stimulate economic growth via increased purchasing power.
Why should this be a government subsidy? Look, the government is already paying this money out. We know we can not trust corporate America to care for the well being of their country and those who work for them. A subsidy would both benefit employees and lesson the bottom-line of the employer.
I truly feel the original intent of social welfare has long been lost to the stepping stone it was meant to be. It has become a crutch for generational poverty and a means to create social apathy and dependency in the impoverished and working class of America.
If we can start to take the right steps now on matters like this as well as clean up some other issues in our country and government we may be able to set forth a bright and lucrative future for our children.
|
|
