CBO Says The Obama Plan To Raise Minimum Wage...

[jeninflorida]

Oh Rob



The choir boy for welfare

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Similarly, one can imagine that while the number of workers remains the same, the intensity of minimum-wage jobs increases. Consider the case of Amazon UK’s Rugely fulfillment center, where workers drawn from the ranks of the long-term unemployed struggled to keep up with the demands of packing and shipping customer orders. Workers who needed more time and training to achieve a given level of productivity were quickly weeded out of Rugely, as Amazon UK found it too expensive to retain them. Essentially, Amazon UK’s hiring and firing practices reflected Michael R. Strain’s observation about the risk employers take on when they hire a worker at a given wage. “Because of the federal minimum wage,” Strain writes, “the company knows that it has to take at least a $7.25-an-hour chance on a worker.” When we reduce the minimum wage, we in effect “significantly mitigate employers’ risk from hiring a long-term unemployed worker.”

Johnson’s (legitimately awesome) article includes a useful illustration of how an increase in the minimum wage might impact the intensity of work effort. One of Johnson’s interviewees, 20-year-old Carly Lynch of Idaho (where the $7.25 federal minimum wage is the law of the land), travels 20 miles a day to Ontario, Oregon (which has a state-level minimum wage of $9.10), where she works at a bar and restaurant. Rather impressively, Lynch doesn’t just work long hours at a bar and restaurant. She also competes in rodeos as a barrel racer, a difficult, resource-intensive undertaking, and so the promise of a higher wage is particularly attractive to her. But Lynch earns her higher wage. One of her employer, restaurant owner Angena Grove, explained to Lynch that “she would have to work harder than before for that money”; servers in the Oregon restaurant cover five tables rather than the three Lynch covered in her Idaho restaurant, and “higher labor costs meant getting rid of the dishwasher.” That is, Grove and her co-owner, her husband Shawn, could no longer outsource the labor-intensive, less-skilled task of dishwashing to a low-wage employee. They had to rely on their servers to pick up the slack.

Reihan Salan, NRO

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/371506/print

 

[miles]

They can jack min wage up to $300 per hour...as that will only fuel Amazon taking over the retail marlet and McDonalds automating the burger.

Fact is, the jobs are as valuable as being a blacksmith, processor of whale oil for lamps....

Now, we could beach Rob and use some of that fat as biofuel

HAHAHA!

 

[Sean Renaud]

They can jack min wage up to $300 per hour...as that will only fuel Amazon taking over the retail marlet and McDonalds automating the burger.

Fact is, the jobs are as valuable as being a blacksmith, processor of whale oil for lamps....

Now, we could beach Rob and use some of that fat as biofuel

HAHAHA!

You know it's scare, the one time she says something fairly brilliant you laugh. That is the goal Jen, has been since the first time a human decided to plant instead wandering in search of food.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Salon:

Thursday, Feb 20, 2014 11:45 AM EST

GOP loses the minimum wage war: Why their position is clueless and doomed

Even if increasing it to $10.10 does cost jobs, so what. Here's why the right has already lost the debate

Brian Beutler

Increasing the minimum wage is a popular idea. It’s also a good, if suboptimal, way to help low-wage workers, address inequality, and reduce poverty. It’s also a policy that distributes a significant amount of money down the income scale using an entirely off-budget mechanism, which means the government isn’t creating a politically vulnerable welfare program and isn’t financing that welfare program with new debt or by taxing outraged rich people.

This makes it an attractive option for liberal elites and lawmakers, too. And at a time when conservatives aren’t willing to entertain more income support or another payroll tax cut, without simultaneously taking it out of the hide of the poor in some other way, the minimum wage is the natural, last-best way for liberals to fight on their behalf. It’s just about the last arrow left in their quiver.

With all that to speak for it, it’s no surprise that conservatives hate the minimum wage, certainly don’t want to increase the minimum wage, and are desperate for independent confirmation of their claim that a $10.10 minimum wage, as President Obama has proposed, is a job killer.

They got their wish on Wednesday, when the Congressional Budget Office released an analysis concluding that a phased-in $10.10 minimum wage would have a modest but real disemployment effect. They projected that at $10.10, the minimum wage would reduce employment somewhere between a trivial amount and 1 million jobs by the end of 2016. Their best estimate within that range is that a $10.10 minimum wage would cost the economy 500,000 jobs relative to what would happen without any increase at all.

Conservatives, who would oppose a minimum wage increase of any size even if the impact on employment amounted to the loss of a single job, were ecstatic. The minimum wage is too popular to oppose with ideology alone. The only way to oppose a policy that’s popular among wage earners, and speaks to a widely shared moral sense that full-time workers shouldn’t live in poverty, is to make supporters worry that their jobs might be on the line.

And that’s exactly what they’ve done.

It’s a tough finding for Democrats to spin away, in part because the finding itself is large enough to command attention without being large enough to invite a ton of second guessing. And if you work in Democratic politics, you can’t just ignore the finding. You have to call it into doubt.

I’m not equipped to adjudicate CBO’s finding. But fortunately that’s not my problem. Mine is explaining why increasing the minimum wage is a good idea in spite of its modest disemployment effect, and drawing out the disingenuousness of the right’s employment-based objection to doing so. Those are both pretty easy tasks.

Let’s start with this wise tweet from economist Austin Frakt:

Austin Frakt @afrakt
Follow
Otherwise, it'd one shld argue for min wage of $0 or $Inf. MT @morningmoneyben: CBO: econ policy choices always have pos and neg impacts.

11:04 AM - 19 Feb 2014

If increasing the minimum wage entailed literally no downside, there’d be no reason not to set it at infinity-jillion dollars. Likewise, if establishing a minimum wage entailed literally no upside, the only reasonable argument would be to set it at $0.00. If you accept that the minimum wage entails both, then you ought to accept that it should be set somewhere in between.

I know zero liberals who believe the federal minimum wage should be infinity dollars, or $1,000 or $100 or even $50. But the case for a $10.10 minimum wage is very strong.

According to CBO, a $10.10 minimum wage would pull about twice as many people out of poverty (900,000) as it would leave without a job, and increase wages for nearly 20 times more people (16.5 million) than that. If a conservative Republican introduced a bill to reduce the minimum wage by as much as Obama wants to increase it, and CBO found that it would thrust a million people into poverty, reduce wages for 15 million more, but created 500,000 jobs, I don’t think that bill would garner much support, no matter how widely its supporters touted it as a “job creator.”

Likewise, a higher minimum wage would probably mitigate some of the consequences of Obamacare conservatives claim to be so distraught about. People who earn higher wages are less likely to quit their jobs. Likewise, when people’s wages increase they slide up the ACA’s means-tested benefit scale. In states that have expanded their Medicaid programs, a higher minimum wage would draw a bunch of new eligibles into the exchanges, creating a savings for the federal government. In states that have refused to expand Medicaid, a higher minimum wage would pull people out of the coverage gap and make them eligible for tax credits on the exchanges. This would come at a cost to the federal government, but would diminish one of the most inhumane unintended consequence of the GOP’s ACA sabotage campaign, and a big political liability for Republican governors.

Nobody on the left disputes that it’s possible to increase the minimum wage beyond the point at which the costs outstrip the benefits. But $10.10 is not that point.

Conservatives, by contrast, overwhelmingly oppose having a minimum wage altogether, whatever the benefits, and have to ignore all of these ancillary ones simply to keep the minimum wage where it is today. Thus, the incongruous spectacle of conservatives touting a CBO report for finding that a certain course of legislative action reduces labor demand. By their own logic, Republicans should have agreed to extend emergency unemployment compensation yesterday, and refused to vote for sequestration — their big victory over Obama — back in 2011.

But confront them with the inconsistency and they retreat to ideology.

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

Leave it to liberals to see an alleged advantage in government intervention for the collective at the expense of the individual and the free market, as long as those individuals or businesses aren't them.

The CBO said one difference between lifting the minimum wage would be almost a million Americans lifted out of poverty. That means they're off welfare and paying much more in taxes. Why isn't that a good thing to you? Because the thing you advocate for means much more poverty and dependence on the government.

 

[mercury14]

You realize that if the CBO calculated the impact of abolishing minimum wage they'd illustrate a colossal spike in poverty, right?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Leave it to liberals to see an alleged advantage in government intervention for the collective at the expense of the individual and the free market, as long as those individuals or businesses aren't them.

What makes you think they "aren't them"? Some liberals do run businesses and employ people.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

The CBO said one difference between lifting the minimum wage would be almost a million Americans lifted out of poverty. That means they're off welfare and paying much more in taxes. Why isn't that a good thing to you? Because the thing you advocate for means much more poverty and dependence on the government.

People like him, deep down where they're scared to shine a light on, abhor the idea of others they fundamentally see as subordinate or substandard to themselves be put on (or given access to) an equal or better footing. Even when they will not be personally affected by anything that happens.

 

[jeninflorida]

Leave it to liberals to see an alleged advantage in government intervention for the collective at the expense of the individual and the free market, as long as those individuals or businesses aren't them.

liberalism, is another world for failure

 

[ZiggyTheHutt]

So they made bad choices and now its my responsibility to support them?

Well, I'm going to pretend you're asking a legitimate question, so let me rephrase what you're saying.

"Why should it be my responsibility to support them?"

No, it's not your responsibility to support them, which is actually what I am saying.

If the minimum wage matches the rise of inflation, then there's no excuse for these workers to need welfare at all.

I'm fully in support of a system where the worker gets paid enough to not need food stamps.

If the minimum wage increases, and the poverty level stays the same, less government checks will be written, and you'll therefore have less of your paycheck stolen from you in the form of taxes.

 

[ZiggyTheHutt]

Zippie, since you have never employed someone .....

As a manager of the restaurant in question, technically I employ 35 people. It is my decision whether they stay on the clock or get sent home. Now, since I am only a manager, I'm not the one paying them, my employer does that. But it's my decision whether or not they remain employed, and how many hours they get. So I would count that. Otherwise the only employer is the owner of the company, and since it's a publicly traded company, anyone with stock is their employer. Which again, would make me their employer regardless.

I'm not sure why you need to make the presumption that you know whether or not I employ anyone.

Well thanks for the useless rhetoric

Likewise.

However, I will point out, my posts actually contain real information, not just empty rhetoric, so I'm pretty sure I'm coming out ahead of the game, if we're comparing me and you.

 

[Sean Renaud]

We don't quote the Jen.

And aside from promoting the work ethic and assuming Ish is right killing time because the worse thing in the world would be people with the time to invent Facebook and Youtube, I'm unclear on exactly why we really care if the 100 bucks from the rich comes in the form of food stamps or if it comes in the form of higher paychecks. Either way it roughly amounts to the same thing. I suppose technically a higher pay check is fairer to the 1% since they'd only be paying for the people who work for them instead of everybody.

 

[ZiggyTheHutt]

We don't quote the Jen.

Please feel free to get me up to speed, why is that?

And aside from promoting the work ethic and assuming Ish is right killing time because the worse thing in the world would be people with the time to invent Facebook and Youtube, I'm unclear on exactly why we really care if the 100 bucks from the rich comes in the form of food stamps or if it comes in the form of higher paychecks.

Here's the reason why it matters:

I'd prefer the money that goes to the employee actually comes from the employer.

Not some random middle class dentist who is now also paying this random employee through taxes and welfare.

Listen, I'm a liberal, and that seems like bullshit to me.

Welfare is for people who cannot work. These people have two jobs. Welfare shouldn't even be part of the equation. As a matter of fact, someone who spends almost every waking hour working should be making enough to put money back into the system.

This should be something liberals, moderates, and conservatives can agree on.

And working class people definitely should be getting paid more than professional welfare queens. I'm sorry, but hard work should be rewarded, that's all I ever hear about the wonders of the free market, is that hard work gets rewarded.

So, if the reward is precisely the same as someone who, instead of getting a job, got an addiction to crack and sharted out nine kids in the back of a whore house, why in the world would I want to get a job? I'd like to have kids, myself. If I knew I could get my way paid for by having an irresponsible number of them, and I had no scruples, then yeah, that's what I'd do.

Either way it roughly amounts to the same thing. I suppose technically a higher pay check is fairer to the 1% since they'd only be paying for the people who work for them instead of everybody.

The 1% are doing just fine. The gap between them and the middle class hasn't been this massive in ages, and they are the only ones whose income level continued to rise regardless of how poorly the economy was doing. They're still enjoying their extended "temporary" tax cuts from Governor Bush, and they're still enjoying their tax havens overseas, their myriad tax loopholes geared toward the wealthy, their special tax rates for capital gains, their myriad business-related tax writeoffs and deductions, and of course, their meteoric rise in salary compared to the average and the minimum wage.

It's more about the middle class. That's who it is fairer on.

They're not involved in this whole employer-employee relationship and shouldn't be. That's why they shouldn't be the ones paying for the employee's food and shelter through welfare. They shouldn't be involved in paying for the employee's health insurance either.

Someone who is employed full time should be able to purchase their own food, shelter, and medicine. But that's not possible due to the rise in cost of things like shelter and medicine, and the stagnation of wages. These people need a paycheck capable of covering those costs.

If health insurance costs over 200 dollars, car insurance costs 150 dollars, rent costs 650 dollars, and your wages are right around a thousand dollars a month, from where comes the money for the electricity bill? Where comes money for gasoline? How does one eat? Oh, that's what a second job is for? Someone has to work 60 hours a week in order to barely maintain a poverty-level lifestyle, eh? Not in any other major western industrialized nation, just here, apparently.

Whatever happened to USA #1? Where's the patronizing gung-ho America-first patriotic jingoists at a time like this? Where is the pride in America when it comes to having a higher basic living standard than Europe?

America being number 1 involves more than just repeating it like a mantra. It has to mean something. It should mean that people who work almost every waking moment of their lives shouldn't have to go hungry or without medicine.

But I guess that's just not the case, according to the self-appointed Real Mericans(tm) who insist folks working two jobs are leeches, who deserve neither a livable wage nor assistance to keep from starving or dying due to lack of medicine.

These are the folks who really love their country, more than the rest of us, but lifting a finger or working a neuron in their brain to improve things in any way would be just too fucking much to ask of them.

 

[Sean Renaud]

You're new, you're find out why we don't quote the Jen soon enough, the short answer is most of us have her on ignore so we don't have to see her posts. Obviously it's not a "rule" and I'm not a mod or anything magical like that. It's just considered in bad taste by most people to quote her.

As for the entire rest of your point a few things come to mind without breaking it down bit by bit. The first is that your point kinda contradicts itself which was the point of my question. But I'll chalk that up to you agreeing with the Ishmael, work is and END not a MEANS category and leave it at that. The majority of people seem to think like that no matter how much it clashes with common sense.

The rest of your points have a few issues which I'll break out (normally I would quote you and break it up but I'm not in the mood and there's little point. You are quite eloquent but in this particular case I don't need the extra words.)

Welfare shouldn't be part of the equation. Well it is. There is nothing we can do to change that because a minimum wage is a form of welfare. It forces employers to pay more money to employers. In fact consider how much of the tax burden is handled by the top 10% and the fact that 47% (it fluctuates every year but that's the popular number right now) of Americans get some kind of welfare the "middle class" you're seeking to protect are hurt a lot more than the 1% who are doing fine with an increased minimum wage vs a minor tax increase to pay for something.

You broke down pay and expenses. This is a good break down. Again back to my original question if we were to move to UHC instead of our current system the people in your hypothetical situation get an extra $200 bucks via not having to pay for it.

I'm all for being #1, however I'm less than convinced that the way forward is to find the more difficult path instead of the smarter path. Employment wise we're kinda stuck in a stupid problem. The rich are getting richer, but more importantly AMERICA as a whole is getting richer while the middle and lower classes are losing ground. DESPITE A BIGGER PIE. Now we can stop them from shipping jobs over seas, the lower folks may get bigger peices but the pie itself is likely to be smaller.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Conservatives don't care how much employees make so long as the employee makes money for the business owner. Minimum Wage hikes without hikes in productivity are inflation that increase prices for all, and increase tax revenues for government via tax bracket creep.

 

[dan_c00000]

Sometimes overpricing the goods is an effective marketing strategy. Has been at least since the 1980s. Snob-appeal, you know.

Please like vette has any taste or money. Remember he claims to own a Corvette. When has anyone with a new Corvette demonstrated any class or taste?

 

[dan_c00000]

Conservatives don't care how much employees make so long as the employee makes money for the business owner. Minimum Wage hikes without hikes in productivity are inflation that increase prices for all, and increase tax revenues for government via tax bracket creep.

If minimum wage kept pace with productivity it would be, according to one study, $21.72 an hour. As always, good job you old piece of shit.

http://www.cepr.net/images/stories/blogs/min-wage1-fig2-2012-03.jpg

 

[BotanyBoy]

Please like vette has any taste or money. Remember he claims to own a Corvette. When has anyone with a new Corvette demonstrated any class or taste?

Dan brings up a good point......

 

[ZiggyTheHutt]

If minimum wage kept pace with productivity it would be, according to one study, $21.72 an hour. As always, good job you old piece of shit.

http://www.cepr.net/images/stories/blogs/min-wage1-fig2-2012-03.jpg

Yes, I was just about to quote this particular bit of information and link it myself.

Productivity has absolutely continued to rise, and all the benefit has gone to the richest 1 percent. None of that prosperity has "trickled down" at all.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

If minimum wage kept pace with productivity it would be, according to one study, $21.72 an hour. As always, good job you old piece of shit.

http://www.cepr.net/images/stories/blogs/min-wage1-fig2-2012-03.jpg

One can almost hear the whistle of the gaseous fail wheezing from the bloated belly puncture of the racist shitstain you harpooned here.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_md3ukoOYpm1qa6g1m.gif

 

[Sean Renaud]

Yes, I was just about to quote this particular bit of information and link it myself.

Productivity has absolutely continued to rise, and all the benefit has gone to the richest 1 percent. None of that prosperity has "trickled down" at all.

Without a method to force them there is no reason why the wealth SHOULD trickle down.

 

[ZiggyTheHutt]

You're new, you're find out why we don't quote the Jen soon enough, the short answer is most of us have her on ignore so we don't have to see her posts. Obviously it's not a "rule" and I'm not a mod or anything magical like that. It's just considered in bad taste by most people to quote her.

That is actually perfectly reasonable. I understand now and will refrain from quoting it in the future.

I'm already aware of what this one and several others do in this section; one doesn't have to browse for more than a few seconds to see someone with no original thoughts of their own attempting to bait others under a bridge. Doesn't bother me much, there's nothing particularly noteworthy about these.

As for the entire rest of your point a few things come to mind without breaking it down bit by bit. The first is that your point kinda contradicts itself which was the point of my question. But I'll chalk that up to you agreeing with the Ishmael, work is and END not a MEANS category and leave it at that. The majority of people seem to think like that no matter how much it clashes with common sense.

I see work as a means to an end. At the end of the day we all want to come home and do something with what we've earned.

My point is some people's wages have stagnated to the point where every dollar they've earned has already been gobbled up by inflation. They've got nothing to go home to, and have to work a second job just to have something of their own.

Welfare shouldn't be part of the equation. Well it is. There is nothing we can do to change that because a minimum wage is a form of welfare. It forces employers to pay more money to employers.

This is a redefinition of terms, and one I won't agree to accept.

There's a difference between a paycheck that I earn from my employer and a handout from a government.

To illustrate my point why this is not an acceptable redefinition of terms, I will term every form of necessary expense as a kind of "tax".

All money that I am forced to spend out of my paycheck is now a "tax" for all intents and purposes. However, in this case, the definition of tax has expanded to include necessary expenditures to private companies.

Why?

Because we just expanded the definition of welfare to include income I earn from a private company rather than the government.

Okay, so fair is fair, my expenses are now taxes, taxes which are usually paid to landlords and utility companies and grocers, rather than the government, since my privately-earned income is considered welfare, my privately spent money that I cannot avoid spending is now considered taxes.

Now I can claim to be in the highest possible tax bracket. I now pay more in taxes than literally everyone else in the country, if we're talking percentages.

Rich people complain that they pay all manner of taxes. Both their percentage and total dollars spent are much more impressive. Oh yes. So they claim to have the biggest tax burden.

Well, if we expand the definition of a "tax" to include expenses I don't really have a say in, then my tax burden far exceeds theirs.

They are capable of taking home half of their income, or 40 percent, or whatever the case may be, after all their taxes and necessary expenditures.

Me?

Well, I may not pay a whole lot in payroll taxes (That's money that would otherwise go to me, since it's being spent on me) or sales taxes or property taxes or license fees or have a whole lot of my total income withheld in income taxes.

As a percentage of my income in total, it's not a whole lot. However, I do have to live somewhere, and the lowest possible rent I can find, can therefore be considered my living expenses tax. That takes up 50 percent of my income.

I have to eat food, and unlike the rich, or even the middle class, this expense may be as high as 20 percent of my income. So 70 percent of my income can be considered gone before I even touch anything besides my rent and food expenses. Call that the "food tax".

Unless it is realistic to assume that the working class will all sleep on the sidewalks of America, this is a necessary tax I must pay in order to live.

Unless it is realistic to assume that the working class never has to eat, that is a necessary tax I must pay in order to live.

Now, I can go without electricity in the scorching heat of the summer, and others can freeze their asses off in the northern states, with no electricity, but is that reasonable to expect of someone with viable employment? I think not. Another 100-150 dollars a month, another 10 percent of my income taken in "electricity taxes".

I could forego having any kind of vehicle, even though this makes finding a suitable place to live and/or work nearly impossible for people who do not live in places with viable mass transit, and have long commuting distances between residential areas and available jobs. But let's play make believe and pretend this is really a viable option, and assume I have no vehicle, gasoline, tires, maintenance, or insurance expenses that are related to getting to and from work. Let's pretend, just for the sake of argument.

Okay, well I will in fact get sick or injured at points in my life, and I need dental care. If I am to realistically pay any of those bills I need to be insured.

That's hundreds of dollars a month more in "Insurance tax".

So, what percent of my income do I actually see after I pay my taxes? Further, how many dollars actually remain to be spent?

If you include expenses which cannot be avoided (taxes paid to the government) with OTHER expenses which cannot be avoided (mandatory spending paid to private companies that I have no choice in paying) then all of those taxes make up almost 100 percent of my income.

Now add the entirely realistic expense of a vehicle, and now I'm paying somewhere in the neighborhood of 125% of my income in taxes. Which means now I need two incomes.

At the end of the day, the rich and the middle class do not have their entire income taken from them in the form of expenses they cannot avoid.

So if my income is welfare, then my expenses are now taxes. And that means I pay far more of my income into the system than any other class of person in the nation, because I do not walk away from a single job with a profit in my pocket, but a debt.

You know how the rich are always complaining that they have no motivation whatsoever to earn their billions of dollars since the taxes are too high?

Because after all, half a billion dollars is chump change. No one wants only a half a billion dollars. It's either a billion dollars, or there's really no point, is there? Those poor rich folks who take home after their mandated taxes and expenses far more than I will ever earn in my lifetime. Pity on them.

So to make a long story short, my income is not welfare. I don't accept that redefinition of terms. I earned a paycheck. Just because that paycheck wasn't a realistic amount to meet the bare minimum of living expenses one might encounter, and a higher standard needs to be set, does not mean the money I went out and earned was welfare.

And by the way, have I mentioned how much I consider the richest people to be ungrateful whiners? They're always complaining about how the system is such a burden to them. I heartily encourage them to trade places with me, because obviously being poor is much less of a burden, and everything is peaches and cream for us, and it's all free rides and gifts and charities. It's all backwards, we at the bottom are actually on top of the world, without a care.

That's the kind of deluded crap that rich people tell one another when they have to carry a briefcase full of a million dollars to their bank every year after they're all done paying for everything they need to pay for. What a terrible burden it is to be so rich. Look at how much they lost, way more than I could ever lose. It doesn't matter how much they have left over, because if we looked at it that way, then I have obviously won this particular argument because they've got nothing left to complain about.

In fact consider how much of the tax burden is handled by the top 10% and the fact that 47% (it fluctuates every year but that's the popular number right now) of Americans get some kind of welfare the "middle class" you're seeking to protect are hurt a lot more than the 1% who are doing fine with an increased minimum wage vs a minor tax increase to pay for something.

So let's break that down, shall we?

These 47 percent-ers, these scums, these leeches, these parasites, sucking the blood of the system from the innocent rich, let's talk about their sweet, free ride.

When we talk about how they get some kind of welfare, what does that mean?

Are we talking about, say, unemployment benefits? Because those are temporary, and entirely paid for by the persons who had employment, before they lost said employment. And it is also based on how much you were getting paid, therefore if you paid in more, you get paid out more. This is a form of welfare that those on welfare paid for themselves. It's a form of insurance, mandated by the government. Like car insurance. If I get an insurance settlement from a car accident, from an insurance policy that I myself paid into all these years, is that welfare?

How about.... Social security? Another insurance-like system I am mandated to pay into, and then, later on, potentially get funds returned from. How about medicare and medicaid? Could these things conceivably be things that I actually paid into, only to one day conceivably get a pay out from?

Suppose it's possible I need to start getting a payout from medicare or medicaid while I'm still working. Maybe I got injured or very sick. So I got my payout earlier than one might anticipate, but yet I'm still paying into the system.

Am I now a welfare queen?

Just seems to me that I paid for all these government-mandated forms of insurance taxed directly from my paycheck all these years. That money BELONGS TO ME in the first place. Now that I'm getting paid out for something I legitimately need, I'm one of the 47% who accept welfare, therefore I'm a moocher, I'm a taker. I'm no longer one of those productive members of society.

No, uh, I think that's all just bullshit rhetoric rich people tell each other.

Let's talk about the 1% whose companies enjoy tax breaks, federal subsidies, incentives to hire workers, and all manner of other giveaways to corporations and employers. They pay into the system in taxes, but they sure get a whole hell of a lot of that money back to them in the form of corporate welfare.

Are these people welfare queens? Leeches, suckers of the government's teat? Because they also get a lot of the federal budget paid back to THEM, and that's also a form of welfare. But you see, in the mind of the rich person, their welfare is the good kind of welfare. The kind of welfare that goes to people who make massive profits with or without welfare, but makes much more massive profits with welfare.

So what about the bad kind of welfare. Food stamps, for example.

Oh, poor little McDonald's crew member, needing food stamps to live. That form of welfare is bad. This person who works to earn a living is doing the "working" part of earning a living, but not getting the "earning" part. This person is a parasite and a moocher now. They're accepting food stamps because they make well below the minimum income needed to be disqualified for food stamps.

That's the bad welfare. Welfare to people who actually, you know, need it.

We have no room for that in our perfect marriage of business and government, where the rich person pays in taxes and then gets their tax money handed right back to them seven different ways, where they contribute to political campaigns in exchange for political favors which will put money right back into their pocket.

Actually having a government help those less fortunate people get a fair shake? That's bad welfare. Bad.

Of course, food stamps do mean that these workers can work for McDonalds and McDonald's doesn't have to pay them a living wage capable of supporting a single person in a studio apartment, who eats food.

So all that money going to feed the worker?

You know, the bad welfare?

That's still a form of corporate welfare.

Money is fungible. If McDonald's paid that worker enough to eat, there'd be no food stamps needed. And then, there would be slightly less in profits (until the business does that thing they always do to remain profitable, which is increase the price of the product so the profit margin is precisely the same).

So, every dollar spent on feeding a McDonald's employee? Is a dollar that McDonald's turns into profit.

It's as if the government is directly paying McDonald's another several hundred million dollars that they get to keep as additional profits.

That's the important, good kind of welfare. The kind that lines rich people's pockets and does absolutely nothing to actually assist the poor in any way, because without that food stamp, the worker would have to get paid more, and then they'd still be able to eat.

Nothing changes for the worker, but the richest 1 percent just got a hundred million dollars as a freebie from the government.

That's the kind of welfare the rich get to have.

Since we're talking about how terrible it is for people to accept welfare, why don't we include the rich in this conversation.

How about we end all forms of corporate welfare, including food stamps to the EMPLOYED, and then mandate that wages increase to reflect that drop in income.

That would end a very unnecessary and costly form of welfare, which is paid for by taxpayers in the middle class, who are essentially having their incomes stolen from them so McDonald's can enjoy a higher profit margin.

That's certainly something I am sure people who don't even eat at McDonald's love to have their money taken from them for- to give it pretty much directly to McDonald's shareholders.

That's a GREAT use of taxpayer money.

Do you see where I'm arguing from now? The poor are not getting the free ride from the government unless they're actually unable to earn any money, or they're part of an extraordinarily rare few of the poor who have managed to game the system.

Contrariwise, fully 100% of rich people game the system for truckloads more free money, and they all get massive amounts of government assistance and breaks from their obligations to society. They also aren't forced to spend every dime they earn.

You broke down pay and expenses. This is a good break down. Again back to my original question if we were to move to UHC instead of our current system the people in your hypothetical situation get an extra $200 bucks via not having to pay for it

Just like medicare, medicaid, social security, and unemployment, all of the costs of universal healthcare would still be billed to me. I am still paying for it, because I still earn a paycheck, and I am not exempt from whatever taxes and other mechanisms there will be in place to pay for it.

The only difference will be that the money will be billed directly to their actual paycheck instead of in the form of hospital bill collector's notices.

That's the sole difference between for-profit healthcare and UHC.

Although, with fewer rich guys taxing the system by adding cost at every level of the process in the form of profits, it might cost me less money.

You see, I pay my taxes to the government, and at every other point in my life where I spend money, I pay taxes to support some rich guy's profitability. Instead of UHC where my medicine might cost 50 dollars a month, I've got to make some rich guy richer, that's why it will cost me 300 dollars a month. 50 dollars for the actual medicine, and 250 dollars in taxes paid to a rich guy.

I'm all for being #1, however I'm less than convinced that the way forward is to find the more difficult path instead of the smarter path. Employment wise we're kinda stuck in a stupid problem. The rich are getting richer, but more importantly AMERICA as a whole is getting richer while the middle and lower classes are losing ground. DESPITE A BIGGER PIE. Now we can stop them from shipping jobs over seas, the lower folks may get bigger peices but the pie itself is likely to be smaller.

Some jobs you can't ship overseas.

UPS guy is paid to deliver a package to your house.

Some guy in China cannot do that because he doesn't live here.

If he moved here, he'd suddenly have the same cost of living expenses as the rest of us, and would need to charge the same as any other American worker just to pay rent and eat.

Some jobs may be shipped overseas, because unskilled manufacturing is easy to outsource, and then ship the finished product back here. And because of the lower cost to the consumer, it helps even the bottom rung of American society keep more of their earned income. So such things are not just inevitable, they are beneficial.

You cannot outsource restaurant workers. Some american is going to serve your food.

You're not about to ship your car to China to get the engine fixed. Some american mechanic is going to fix your car.

You can't get things delivered by people who live overseas.

You can't get your house built by people who live overseas.

You get into an accident, and some person needs to physically view the damage. Guy in China can't come over here and do that.

We lost a lot of jobs overseas, I grant you that. And what we got in return were a bunch of jobs selling the products that we now import. And the income isn't exactly the same, but that's globalization.

Some jobs cannot be globalized. But they could be unionized. And if workers were allowed to form a union (since employers are allowed to set the wages they are willing to pay, workers should be allowed to demand the wages they're willing to work for- that's called the free market) without harassment, threat of termination, or retaliation, then the workers would demand the wages they're worth.

You do that, and suddenly there will be millions and millions of people not getting welfare from the government, and millions of people working only 1 job, allowing more people to enter the workforce.

Oh, and the amount of money being spent by these millions of people will increase by almost exactly the same amount as their rise in wages, creating massive economic stimulus without using a dime of taxpayer money.

It's really not even a question of should this be done. The question is, why aren't we doing it?

And the reason is because the government and the media alike are both owned, lock, stock, and barrel, by the wealthiest class, who objects to an end to government-subsidized rich people. They're in favor of continuing to get their business and labor-related expenses paid for by the government so they can make more in profits. Shutting off such a massive pipeline of free money is against their greedy interests. Keeping workers poor, hungry, and desperate is in their greedy interests.

It makes sense that businessmen will create boogeymen to scare workers into not fighting for what is rightfully theirs, but what doesn't make sense is that this boogeyman is considered an economic fact of life.

Especially considering the economy was doing EXTRAORDINARILY WELL the last several times the minimum wage increased.

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/newsroom/img/posts/2013/12/Chart_Minimum_Wage_CNN/7ecd1cf17.jpg

Part of the reason why the economy was doing so well is because those on the bottom rung of the economic ladder (folks who spend almost every dime they make, which makes them consumers) were spending more. You know, on black friday, for example. Or in restaurants. Or at the store, buying moderately priced consumer goods, like TVs and stereos. You know, the kind of spending that keeps our economy going? Well, that's the kind of spending that many can no longer afford. Because back when the minimum wage last rose, prices were lower.

Having loads and loads of unemployed people not spending anything, and employed people spending only on rent, food, and electricity, means you have loads of people who are not spending more than the bare minimum they need to spend.

You want the economy to recover? Millions of people need a raise.

And when those people get a raise, and the economy starts to recover, those folks in the middle class whose income is based on a good economy, they'll also get a raise. They'll get those bonuses. And the prosperity will trickle.... up.

That works because those on the bottom spend their money in the marketplace, whereas the rich hoard it for themselves. That's why trickle down doesn't work, never has, and never will, but every single time the poorest classes have money to spend, TA-DAAAAA, it gets spent, and the economy improves.

This is stuff we already know, but some people are still stuck thinking money is a zero-sum game.

If I have money, and nobody else does, that's great, right?

Actually it turns out that's pretty shitty.

You could make a lot more money if other people had money to spend on that thing you invested a lot of money in to make yourself even more money.

It's not a zero sum game. But a lot of people seem to be opposed to the idea of poor people earning more money because they believe somehow this will make the economy worse.

I can't even fit inside my head how completely ass-backwards that kind of thinking is. It is incredibly naive and has a very long history of being proven dead wrong, consistently, on all levels of economics, from the micro to the macro.

The economy is bad BECAUSE people have no money!

People with no money spend no money. Keep wages stagnant, and your economy will grind to a halt and, amazingly, not magically recover all on its own.

I feel like saying duh, but even smart people seem to have missed this obvious point completely.

Dunno what's so hard about it.

 

[ZiggyTheHutt]

Without a method to force them there is no reason why the wealth SHOULD trickle down.

Of course not, trickle-down economics is the same kind of bullshit fed to us by the rich that has been proven wrong time and time again.

Hey, supply siders said, let's give massive tax breaks to the most prosperous among us, at the expense of our budget solvency, and watch the wealth trickle-down!

And so the Bush Tax Cuts were born.

And as Bush leaves office, the economy is in utter shambles. What happened?

Now, let's extend those tax cuts.

The economy still sucks. What happened to all that trickle-down wealth?

Maybe those people who it was supposed to trickle down onto had no means of getting trickled on, because all that money went straight into rich CEO pockets, and it stayed there.

And the worker it was supposed to trickle down onto got paid exactly the same for a decade.

Trickle-down economics: The brilliant theory that giving rich people more money will result in rich people getting more money, sold as a way of getting poor people more money.

Well played. Shame on anyone who fell for that crap.