Romney: "I'm not concerned about the very poor"

Catawba said:

Your reasoning makes no logical sense. There are 4 people for every job. Today, half those jobs (estimate) are minimum wage jobs. So lets say we do what you think will fix the problem by only training everyone to have a skill. There are still 4 people for every job, and half the jobs available only pay minimum wage, so half the people who are forced to take the minimum wage jobs (despite their skills), still require welfare because minimum wage doesn't provide for subsistence living.

Your "solution" does nothing unless we also provide a living wage for full-time work.

Click to expand...

First of all, I didnt put forward any kind of 'solution.' I simply laid out the realities of the market. Second, I dont buy that half the jobs out there are minimum wage jobs. Heck, I dont even know where you can even find a job that pays minimum wage. McDonalds and Burger King have been starting people above minimum for years. Third, a person who is working for minimum may need to take a second job. I suspect most of the figures you are looking at are based upon a 40 hour work week. I work 55 to 60 hour work week and have weekends free. Third, if jobs are hard to come by, perhaps it might be a good idea to acquire a skill that someone might want rather than leaching off your neighbors. Finally, I reject your premise that it is my role as a taxpayer to subsidize the lifestyle of someone else. The responsibility for your life lies with you. If you havent bothered to take the time to develop the skills necessary to sustain your own life, that job does not fall upon my shoulders.

AdamT said:

The German program has absolutely no relation to Solyndra.

What Germany does is, instead of paying unemployed workers after they've been laid off, they will pay the person's employer not to lay off workers. Say, for example, that Acme Corp. has 100 employees and it determines that it needs to lay off 20 due to weak demand. Acme notifies the government of its intended layoff. But instead of firing the 20 workers, who would then collect unemployment, Acme will retain all of its employees. They will put a number of workers on a "short work" program, where they may only work three days a week, or three weeks a month (for example). The government then subsidizes Acme for the short work program, so that the short work employees still make 80 - 90% of their full wages, Acme has only the payroll that it needs to meet demand, and no one loses his or her job.

Then, when the economy picks up, Acme doesn't have to go out and hire and train new workers, and the workers who would have been fired don't have to move to other jobs to which they might not be suited.

Buying Itself Out of a Recession: Countries Ask How Germany Avoided Mass Unemployment - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

Click to expand...

Oh noes, we wouldn't want people to have to work at jobs that might not "suit" them. Sure, you can avoid all sorts of bad unemployment numbers if the government pays businesses to hire or keep people, but that kind of spending is unsustainable. Besides all that, what if Acme is failing because it just sucks? Now you got tax payer money propping up a business that should just be allowed to fail (as in the case of Solyndra).

What ever happened to people deciding that a savings fund was important in case of unemployment/emergency?

Taking responsibilities that should be on the individual and shifting them to government is never a good thing.

X Factor said:

Oh noes, we wouldn't want people to have to work at jobs that might not "suit" them. Sure, you can avoid all sorts of bad unemployment numbers if the government pays businesses to hire or keep people, but that kind of spending is unsustainable. Besides all that, what if Acme is failing because it just sucks? Now you got tax payer money propping up a business that should just be allowed to fail (as in the case of Solyndra).

Click to expand...

Why don't you try reading and comprehending what I wrote, and linked to, instead of making up what you want me to have written?

In the Acme Corp. hypothetical, Acme isn't "failing" in any way, and the government isn't bailing it out in any way. Rather, Acme, like any company, would simply lay off employees to remain a going, profitable concern. The German program is an alternative to paying unemployment, except that it works better for both businesses and individuals. And we can't have that, can we? Government actually *helping* businesses and taxpayers?! No, businesses and taxpayers must be punished when the economy slows down. :roll:

digsbe said:

What ever happened to people deciding that a savings fund was important in case of unemployment/emergency?

Taking responsibilities that should be on the individual and shifting them to government is never a good thing.

Click to expand...

You say that as if there was a time when the average worker had adequate savings to sustain a lengthy period of unemployment without assistance, but there has never been such a time.

AdamT said:

You say that as if there was a time when the average worker had adequate savings to sustain a lengthy period of unemployment without assistance, but there has never been such a time.

Click to expand...

From 2006 the average household brought in $50,233. If someone can't budget this into apportioning a savings fund then our populace really does have its priorities out of whack.

It's the "keeping up with the Jones" mentality, where everyone wants as much stuff as their neighbor to feel successful. Spending what you make and more (credit) because of our national theme "why else make it if you can't spend it"? I've lived on a little more than 17k a year fairly well, so it can be done if you try hard enough and don't get addicted to spending.

digsbe said:

From 2006 the average household brought in $50,233. If someone can't budget this into apportioning a savings fund then our populace really does have its priorities out of whack.

Click to expand...

Where I am, in Northern Virginia, the cheapest 1 bedroom you can get is 900/month. With utilities, make that 1k, making for 12k/year in rent & utils. 50-12=38k left. You'll also pay around 10k in taxes. That's 28k left. If you pay 4k year in car payments & insurance, that gives you 2k/month. Subtract gas, about 50/week for most people, that gives you around 450/week. Even if your scraping, with a family of four, about 75/week for food. That leaves you with around 325/week. Clothing for kids will easily grab 25 out of that. If both parents are working to make that 50k, childcare is going to be *at least* the rest of your income. Anything else that comes up, car repairs or a speeding ticket, or whatnot, and you're in debt. Nevermind healthcare costs/insurance/medicine, any kind of vacation or entertainment you may want, cable/internet/etc -- forget about it. Don't expect to have anything left for Christmas, either. Any other expenses just don't get paid.

Years ago, I had a job that paid $55k/year, and, single, I could afford to live without dipping into savings, but not by much. There's no way in hell a family could afford to live on that in my area. Maybe in rural Alabama 50k/year is a lot, but that doesn't mean it is everywhere else, too. Hell, they have rent controlled apartments here for families making less than 100k/year.

BooRadley said:

Where I am, in Northern Virginia, the cheapest 1 bedroom you can get is 900/month. With utilities, make that 1k, making for 12k/year in rent & utils. 50-12=38k left. You'll also pay around 10k in taxes. That's 28k left. If you pay 4k year in car payments & insurance, that gives you 2k/month. Subtract gas, about 50/week for most people, that gives you around 450/week. Even if your scraping, with a family of four, about 75/week for food. That leaves you with around 325/week. Clothing for kids will easily grab 25 out of that. If both parents are working to make that 50k, childcare is going to be *at least* the rest of your income. Anything else that comes up, car repairs or a speeding ticket, or whatnot, and you're in debt. Nevermind healthcare costs/insurance/medicine, any kind of vacation or entertainment you may want, cable/internet/etc -- forget about it. Don't expect to have anything left for Christmas, either. Any other expenses just don't get paid.

Years ago, I had a job that paid $55k/year, and, single, I could afford to live without dipping into savings, but not by much. There's no way in hell a family could afford to live on that in my area. Maybe in rural Alabama 50k/year is a lot, but that doesn't mean it is everywhere else, too. Hell, they have rent controlled apartments here for families making less than 100k/year.

Click to expand...

Yeah. Living costs in northern Virginia are based on the average income in northern Virginia, which is considerably higher than the national average.

Harshaw said:

Yeah. Living costs in northern Virginia are based on the average income in northern Virginia, which is considerably higher than the national average.

Click to expand...

Point being, you can't judge someone's management of their household economics if you don't know anything about them, their household, their expenses or their community. A family can barely live on 50k/year here. Same with a lot of other areas -- NYC & SF, are the other areas I spend time, and I couldn't live in either one of those on that low of an income, either.

digsbe said:

From 2006 the average household brought in $50,233. If someone can't budget this into apportioning a savings fund then our populace really does have its priorities out of whack.

Click to expand...

Great idea. Maybe we should all self-insure for health care and auto, too? We'll just eat beans and rice while we hoard the rest of our money on the off chance that something bad should happen. That'll be great for the economy.

Fletch said:

First of all, I didnt put forward any kind of 'solution.' I simply laid out the realities of the market.

Click to expand...

So you are saying the realities of the market don't prevent the US from having one of the greatest disparities of wealth on the planet?

That is obvious, and why a government requirement for a living wage is needed.

Second, I dont buy that half the jobs out there are minimum wage jobs. Heck, I dont even know where you can even find a job that pays minimum wage. McDonalds and Burger King have been starting people above minimum for years. Third, a person who is working for minimum may need to take a second job. I suspect most of the figures you are looking at are based upon a 40 hour work week. I work 55 to 60 hour work week and have weekends free. Third, if jobs are hard to come by, perhaps it might be a good idea to acquire a skill that someone might want rather than leaching off your neighbors.

Click to expand...

"millions of Americans already have jobs that don't pay very much.

Getting the economy going will require more than just creating a large number of low-wage positions, said Paul Osterman, economics professor at MIT. Raising the minimum wage to get more cash to the working poor is just as crucial, he said.

About 20% of American adults who have jobs are earning only $10.65 an hour or less, according to Osterman's analysis. Even at 40 hours a week, that amounts to less than $22,314, the poverty level for a family of four.

The federal minimum wage currently stands at $7.25 an hour (18 states set their own rates above the federal level, maxing out at $8.67 an hour in Washington State).

But increases have not kept up with inflation. When adjusted for inflation, the highest federal minimum wage was in 1968, when it was the equivalent of $10.38 in today's dollars."

Minimum wage jobs leave millions in poverty - Sep. 27, 2011

Finally, I reject your premise that it is my role as a taxpayer to subsidize the lifestyle of someone else.

Click to expand...

I reject your position of support for taxpayer subsidies for employers.

The responsibility for your life lies with you.

Click to expand...

Only if it is possible to earn a living through full-time work.

If you havent bothered to take the time to develop the skills necessary to sustain your own life, that job does not fall upon my shoulders.

Click to expand...

Your view ignores the reality that 20% of available jobs only pay minimum wage (regardless of skill level).

Catawba said:

So you are saying the realities of the market don't prevent the US from having one of the greatest disparities of wealth on the planet?

That is obvious, and why a government requirement for a living wage is needed.

Click to expand...

What's a "living wage" for the 30% or so of high school students who are occupying the minimum wage jobs and don't pay their own bills?

And what prevents low wage jobs from being automated as minimum wages rise above the value of the work?

Getting the economy going will require more than just creating a large number of low-wage positions, said Paul Osterman, economics professor at MIT. Raising the minimum wage to get more cash to the working poor is just as crucial, he said.

Click to expand...

Money doesn't just go TO people. It also comes FROM people. From where is the minimum wage hike coming?

About 20% of American adults who have jobs are earning only $10.65 an hour or less, according to Osterman's analysis. Even at 40 hours a week, that amounts to less than $22,314, the poverty level for a family of four.

Click to expand...

How many of this 20% are single or don't have kids? On that note, how many of this 20% should do the right thing and NOT have kids (considering doing so places them in the technical category of 'in poverty?'

Only if it is possible to earn a living through full-time work.

Click to expand...

If you determine it's not currently possible for you to earn a living, your bills automatically become someone else's responsibility?

Neomalthusian said:

What's a "living wage" for the 30% or so of high school students who are occupying the minimum wage jobs and don't pay their own bills?

And what prevents low wage jobs from being automated as minimum wages rise above the value of the work?

Click to expand...

"Contrary to stereotypes, low-wage workers whose pay scales are affected by the minimum wage are overwhelmingly adults, many supporting families. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, three quarters of minimum wage earners are 20 or older. The percentage is even higher for low-wage workers earning $9.00 or $10.00 per hour, whose pay scales would rise if the minimum wage were restored to its historical level. In fact, the median worker age is close to 40 for home health care workers, one of the nation’s top-growth low-wage occupations. Especially after the Great Recession, more and more Americans are spending their careers in low-wage jobs where the minimum wage helps set pay scales."
Minimum Wage Question and Answer | Raise The Minimum Wage

Money doesn't just go TO people. It also comes FROM people. From where is the minimum wage hike coming?

Click to expand...

The same place it has come from for every other minimum wage increase in history.

If you determine it's not currently possible for you to earn a living, your bills automatically become someone else's responsibility?

Click to expand...

Only as long as we continue to subsidize employers wages as opposed to paying someone a living wage for full time work.

I prefer people working for a living, but that's just me........................

Going back to that $1 an hour minimum wage of my youth, I'd like to point out that gasoline at that time cost 25 cents a gallon, so that made the $1 the equivalent of four gallons of gas. At today's prices, that would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $15 an hour.

and back then, most employers paid more than minimum, just as they do now.

and Kennedy had the temerity to support a 25% increase of that equivalent $15.

Wages have not kept up with inflation over the past half century or so, not even close.

BooRadley said:

Point being, you can't judge someone's management of their household economics if you don't know anything about them, their household, their expenses or their community. A family can barely live on 50k/year here. Same with a lot of other areas -- NYC & SF, are the other areas I spend time, and I couldn't live in either one of those on that low of an income, either.

Click to expand...

And the national average would be understood to be a national average, not a local one. You'd compare the cost to national averages, not your local costs.

In other words, don't talk about oranges being sour when someone says apples are sweet.

Harshaw said:

And the national average would be understood to be a national average, not a local one. You'd compare the cost to national averages, not your local costs.

In other words, don't talk about oranges being sour when someone says apples are sweet.

Click to expand...

Beside the point. I don't care where you live in the U.S. Any family of four living on around $50k is going to struggle to put aside enough dough to cover six months or more of minimum spending, and even six months reserve would have been too short for many during this downturn.

11 Ways America is Keeping Poor People Poor

"An ancient piece of common wisdom says the poor get poorer and the rich get richer (in fact it’s as ancient as the Bible). We’ve all experienced this in small ways in our daily lives in the form of bank fees if our account falls below a certain minimum amount, or in the higher interest rates we pay on a loan given the fact that we don’t have a yacht to put up as collateral. But lately it seems like this proverb has shifted to “the poor get poorer and holy crap don’t tax the rich — who else is going to generously provide menial minimum-wage jobs to the poor?!”

In case it doesn’t go without saying, being poor is really super awful in ways most people fail to think about. Well, “most people” might be stretching it, since statistically speaking, the percentage of Americans living in poverty is at its highest point in more than a decade, not to mention that the poverty line is $22,350 for a family of four. Try supporting just yourself on that and see how not poor you feel. So for the sake of re-affirming the obvious, let’s dive into the actual reasons why the poor stay poor in America."

11 Ways America is Keeping Poor People Poor | Business Pundit

BooRadley said:

My understanding is that companies already charge the highest rate that the market will bear for their products, and that this is the very basis of market economics. That being the case, the idea that a company will raise it's prices if it has to pay it's labour a very slightly more reasonable wage seems a bit bogus. If the market would bear higher prices, they would have already been charging higher prices. Either that, or the management is in dire need of training. Minimum wage earners don't have enough capital, before or after a minimum-wage hike, to directly impact major investment prices. I guess it seems foreign to some people, but if you make $7.25/hour for a 40 hour week, that's less than $300/week, about $15,000/year if you don't take any time off. That's not enough after the bare necessities of life to buy houses, cars, and investment packages.

Click to expand...

Investment packages? A necessity of life? WTF? LOL How many houses and cars does one need????

Dude, I own 2 cars, a motorcycle and I just bought a house. I live off of less than 300 a week. I have a 600 dollar mortgage and 100 dollars a month in gas. I eat 5-6 dollars of food a day. My light bill is 35 a month, my water bill is 12.50. I do not subscribe to any TV service and my internet bill is 69 a month. I've never taken a cold shower nor gone to sleep cold or hot or hungry, for that matter.

I make far more than 300 a week, but I could easily live on that, heck I'm doing it now! I wouldn't have a ton of savings, but I sure would be able to continue my lifestyle. If I could do it, someone with fewer cars and expenses should be fine. So I'm living off of less than minimum wage if you look at my expenses, and I'm doing fine.

dontworrybehappy said:

Investment packages? A necessity of life? WTF? LOL How many houses and cars does one need????

Dude, I own 2 cars, a motorcycle and I just bought a house. I live off of less than 300 a week. I have a 600 dollar mortgage and 100 dollars a month in gas. I eat 5-6 dollars of food a day. My light bill is 35 a month, my water bill is 12.50. I do not subscribe to any TV service and my internet bill is 69 a month. I've never taken a cold shower nor gone to sleep cold or hot or hungry, for that matter.

I make far more than 300 a week, but I could easily live on that, heck I'm doing it now! I wouldn't have a ton of savings, but I sure would be able to continue my lifestyle. If I could do it, someone with fewer cars and expenses should be fine. So I'm living off of less than minimum wage if you look at my expenses, and I'm doing fine.

Click to expand...

How much do you pay for health insurance for your family? Minimum wage is $290 a week before taxes are taken out.

The bottom line is that money begets money. If you have capital, you can make money from it, if you don't make any foolish moves. If you have a lot of capital, you can make a lot of money. If you don't, then your only option is to try to hold down a job and perhaps save some.

Now, there's nothing wrong with all of that. It's the way a capitalistic economy works.

What is wrong is that money earned from wages is taxed at a much higher rate than money that is made by having money.

Let's say, for example, that you've managed to make, save, or inherit a million bucks. That used to be a real fortune, but now, not so much. You have that million safely invested in a non aggressive, safe sort of thing making 5%. Now, your income from that is 50 K per year. Not a lot, but a pretty good income.

Of that 5%, you're paying 15% in capital gains, unless, that is, you've invested in tax free municipal bonds or something. In that case, you're paying nothing.

Now, your neighbor works and brings home 50K. Of that, he is paying a 10% payroll tax right off the top. Add to that an income tax, perhaps a state income tax, and you're way over that 15% that is the max the neighbor is paying.

Is this fair, or is it the result of the fact that the same people who make most of their money from investments also are the ones who have enough to invest in campaigns?

"If the 1% convince enough people in the 99% that they too will someday be wealthy then we will have solidified our path to oligarchy rule. There are some days when I think we are already there. At the very least we are living in a country that is increasingly resembling a ‘representative oligarchy’ instead of a ‘representative democracy’.

During the Republican response to President Obama’s State of the Union address, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels said,

As Republicans our first concern is for those waiting tonight to begin or resume the climb up life’s ladder. We do not accept that ours will ever be a nation of haves and have nots; we must always be a nation of haves and soon to haves."

"Daniels, obviously enough, makes it quite clear that his euphemism is a substitute for “have-nots” (which can itself be seen as something of a euphemism for the term “poor”). “Soon to haves” is clearly a more pleasant phrase than “have nots.” After all, the have-nots are lacking and there is no implication of hope."

"If you support a continued eroding of our representative democracy where a small group of wealthy-elites have a disproportionate influence on policy and legislation then please go ahead and continue with the status quo and vote Republican, the party of the 1%."

A 'Nation Of Haves And Soon To Haves': The Path To Oligarchy

Harshaw said:

And the national average would be understood to be a national average, not a local one. You'd compare the cost to national averages, not your local costs.

In other words, don't talk about oranges being sour when someone says apples are sweet.

Click to expand...

The post I was replying to said that anyone should be able to work out a savings on that. I was simply pointing out to that poster that things aren't the same for everyone else as it is for him. Why is that a problem for you?