• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CBO Says Minimum-Wage Rise May Ease Poverty, Cost Jobs

Verax said:
This is standard nonsense the greedy trot out when their rigged game is explored
Click to expand...

Oh for crying out loud. :roll: I just did my taxes, and my earned income was about $34,000. But I'm a greedy 1%'er because I recognize foolish, faith-based economics when I see it?

You think all profit belongs to the rich
Click to expand...

That's an interesting claim. Can you post a single example of me ever saying so?

and if anyone gets a little more it will be the end of the economy and socialism will take over.
Click to expand...

Nope. I'd love to see the incomes of all Americans, poor, middle, and upper incomes improve. I want to see those who are unemployed find jobs. That's one of the reasons I oppose foolish, destructive policies like increasing the minimum wage.

I've seen this bs my whole life, its petty bully tactics to convince people they'd better take that small paycheck and shutup.
Click to expand...

So.... is the decision to respond with untutored attempts at mocking an implicit admission that you lack a better response.?

Then you complain about welfare, most welfare recipients work ya know.
Click to expand...

There is no more "welfare" as we know it. If you are referring to recipients of various forms of our social safety net, then yes, the numbers of people who must work in order to receive the EITC do indeed make most "welfare" recipients into workers. That does not in any way change the fact that SSDI and SNAP in particular have seen explosions in the last handful of years. Even the New York Times admitted that ending long-term unemployment benefits would likely result in a decrease in unemployment, as people took lower-paying jobs than what they used to have.

You can't have it both ways... you can't pay poverty wages then complain about those same people drawing welfare because their job doesn't pay enough.
Click to expand...

I'm not complaining about people drawing assistance. I think that it is idiotic the way that we structure assistance so as to encourage people to opt for it rather than increasing their earned income.

Yes you're right, entitlements are breaking the country.
Click to expand...

That is correct, I am right about that. The Medicare Trustees, the CBO, the GAO, the IMF, President Obama's own Bipartisan Debt Reduction Commission, President Clinton, Paul Ryan, and everyone in between all agree with me on that, however, so it's not as if I've come to any particularly unique conclusion.

SSDI, for example, is currently scheduled to go broke in 2016, as it has ballooned in recent years.

Corporate welfare, tax cuts for the rich, an effective tax rate of < 15% for billionaires, effective taxes of 25% or more on the working poor.
Click to expand...

:lol: you're going to have to sell that song to someone else. I have never paid an effective tax rate of 25%, in fact, reliably, I have paid a negative tax rate. I barely made it into the negatives this year, but that is because apparently we punish low-income people for the crime of attempting to supplement low earned incomes by saving and investing.

We really need to clamp down on the freeloaders who milk the real workers for all they're worth.
Click to expand...

:shrug: I don't know about "clamp down", in some cases of habitual abusers, perhaps. But I'm a somewhat optimistic fellow, and my bet would be that the majority of those folks are simply following the deeply flawed short-term incentive structure that we give them. When a working mom faces a welfare cliff, of course she isn't going to try to earn more income - why in the world would she lower her childrens' standard of living in order to work more?
 
Gipper said:
Hi. This is a discussion about economics. This isn't a discussion about "fair".

No company has an obligation to bend to what you personally think is "fair".
Click to expand...
As part of the bigger picture a company has the obligation to pay a wage that doesn't require the taxpayer to pick up the rest of those working stiffs salaries through welfare programs. Gotta love it, Wal-Mart employees collect SNAP and wind up using those Government Dole funds at Walmart. It's a win win for them. They pay enough to keep their worker bees living on the fringe and rake in Government cash when the workers get their monthly welfare checks.
 
Last edited:
HenryChinaski said:
As part of the bigger picture a company has the obligation to
Click to expand...

No, they don't.

pay a wage that doesn't require the taxpayer to pick up the rest of those working stiffs salaries through welfare programs. Gotta love it, Wal-Mart employees collect SNAP and wind up using those Government Dole funds at Walmart. It's a win win for them. They pay enough to keep their worker bees living on the fringe and rake in Government cash when the workers get their monthly welfare checks.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a good argument to cut entitlement programs.

You're right insofar that we shouldn't reward people for aspiring to Walmart plebe.
 
CPWill you screwed up your quotes and I don't feel like sifting through it to fix it, so this is my reply to your last post.

The logic in your business example is so bizarre and twisted it is incomprehensible psychobabble. You've attributed cause effect in so many different directions it borders on insanity. The idea that a business paying it's workers $100 more would result in a 98% net loss for everyone involved is such incredible hyperbole I have to wonder where you get these ideas from.

Yes Wal-Mart's cheap goods have some positive effects. However they also have negative effects on the surrounding community. You have to weigh the entire net effect of this kind of business. Cheap goods but they pay poverty wages for everyone who works there. The profit is funneled out of the community. Watch "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices" for another perspective on this. These low wage workers become welfare cases that the state government has to prop up, subsidizing Wal-Mart's profits. The workers can less afford healthcare if they get sick and run up the costs of healthcare because they can't pay the bills. These things do not strengthen the community, they weaken it terribly.

The point I've made numerous times in this thread is that the majority of people are median, they will be paid a median, low wage. That is the problem with the middle class, the median class, they have too little spending power. Individual achievement is not going to magically fix this. We're talking about the economy, not how individuals can improve their lives.

At the end you revert to a laissez faire worldview where you think if we just let things play out it will fix everything and be great. We've already tried this many times, it doesn't work. What we end up with is a wild, unbalanced system that breaks everything as it spins out of control. It just happened back in 2007 and you guys still don't get it. You de-regulate and let things play out and what you get is a violent game where the big players loot and pillage and the common person foots the bill.
 
Verax said:
:doh I've tried to explain to you several times now your mistake and it just bounces right off of you.
Click to expand...

You haven't explained anything. You've simply made statements.
 
Gipper said:
Sounds like a good argument to cut entitlement programs.
Click to expand...

If they did, I wonder if people would take jobs at Walmart (etc) for the current salary. I would guess they would be far less inclined too and Walmart (etc) would end up having to increase wages.
 
HenryChinaski said:
As part of the bigger picture a company has the obligation to pay a wage that doesn't require the taxpayer to pick up the rest of those working stiffs salaries through welfare programs. Gotta love it, Wal-Mart employees collect SNAP and wind up using those Government Dole funds at Walmart. It's a win win for them. They pay enough to keep their worker bees living on the fringe and rake in Government cash when the workers get their monthly welfare checks.
Click to expand...

No the worker has an 'obligation' (since you want to call it that) to make the amount of money to support their own needs. It's no one else's responsibility but the person themselves.

If an overall increase of wages, such as raising the minimum wage may temporarily provide additional purchasing power for those at FMW level, but a reduction of purchasing power for those who are above FMW as prices rise based on the cost of labor.
 
Verax said:
Another person clinging to semantics... seriously what is wrong with you guys? I explain very clearly what I'm talking about and you just go for red herrings over and over.

Do you have no argument other than to obsess over terms?
Click to expand...

Verax, words...and their meaning...matter. As I told you before, you shouldn't go around making up your own definitions because people won't know what the hell you are talking about...and because it shows that YOU don't know what the hell you are talking about.

That's why people "obsess over terms".
 
Gipper said:
No, they don't.



Sounds like a good argument to cut entitlement programs.

You're right insofar that we shouldn't reward people for aspiring to Walmart plebe.
Click to expand...

Yes they do. Ohh, my favorite right wing buzz word "entitlement program":) Not "I work a full time job for a company that doesn't pay me enough to stock my pantry with enough food, so I have to supplement my dietary needs through a government program funded by the tax-payer"
 
GottaGo said:
No the worker has an 'obligation' (since you want to call it that) to make the amount of money to support their own needs. It's no one else's responsibility but the person themselves.

If an overall increase of wages, such as raising the minimum wage may temporarily provide additional purchasing power for those at FMW level, but a reduction of purchasing power for those who are above FMW as prices rise based on the cost of labor.
Click to expand...
Bull crap. Wal-Mart rakes in record profits while they pay wages where their employees must utilize tax payer funds to supplement their basic needs. There is something seriously wrong with that. We just don't agree with what that something is.
 
buck said:
If they did, I wonder if people would take jobs at Walmart (etc) for the current salary. I would guess they would be far less inclined too and Walmart (etc) would end up having to increase wages.
Click to expand...

They wouldn't have to. Walmart will never have a labor shortage, due to the low-skilled nature of their employees.
 
cpwill said:
Oh for crying out loud. :roll: I just did my taxes, and my earned income was about $34,000. But I'm a greedy 1%'er because I recognize foolish, faith-based economics when I see it?
Click to expand...
So you're just the messenger for the rich. :doh Why low income people support these systems blows me away.


That's an interesting claim. Can you post a single example of me ever saying so?
Click to expand...
Your argument was that if any profit is cut into it would break the system.

Nope. I'd love to see the incomes of all Americans, poor, middle, and upper incomes improve. I want to see those who are unemployed find jobs. That's one of the reasons I oppose foolish, destructive policies like increasing the minimum wage.
Click to expand...
The unemployed are never going to get jobs unless consumer spending increases. Consumer spending cannot increase unless consumers have more money to spend through stimulus. Raising minimum wage would be stimulus. Lowering wages so everyone has a job would just result in millions of people making 4$ an hour. That is what Cuba does, they pay their workers crap and have virtually no unemployment.

So.... is the decision to respond with untutored attempts at mocking an implicit admission that you lack a better response.?
Click to expand...
Its nonsense, the powerful trick the poor into taking smaller amounts of money home every year. You're just another sucker who has bought the lie.

There is no more "welfare" as we know it. If you are referring to recipients of various forms of our social safety net, then yes, the numbers of people who must work in order to receive the EITC do indeed make most "welfare" recipients into workers. That does not in any way change the fact that SSDI and SNAP in particular have seen explosions in the last handful of years. Even the New York Times admitted that ending long-term unemployment benefits would likely result in a decrease in unemployment, as people took lower-paying jobs than what they used to have.
Click to expand...
This is another case where your logic makes zero sense. The reason the welfare programs have exploded in use is because of... the... recession.... and.... low... stagnant... wages.... How you think paying everyone less would fix this is beyond me. Do you think paying everyone $5 an hour would result in nobody on welfare?

I'm not complaining about people drawing assistance. I think that it is idiotic the way that we structure assistance so as to encourage people to opt for it rather than increasing their earned income.
This is a common myth that people choose between welfare or working. You should already realize that most of the people on welfare are... already... working... they are not choosing to sit at home to collect their $90 a month. :doh

That is correct, I am right about that. The Medicare Trustees, the CBO, the GAO, the IMF, President Obama's own Bipartisan Debt Reduction Commission, President Clinton, Paul Ryan, and everyone in between all agree with me on that, however, so it's not as if I've come to any particularly unique conclusion.
Click to expand...
The current thinking has largely been austerity and it hasn't worked very well. We are starting to talk about more Keynesian solutions finally. You think this is a plus but it is actually an omission of failure.

SSDI, for example, is currently scheduled to go broke in 2016, as it has ballooned in recent years.
Click to expand...
When you bend over backwards to create tax breaks for the rich and "starve the beast" what you end up with is exactly what they wanted. Blame republicans for this.

:lol: you're going to have to sell that song to someone else. I have never paid an effective tax rate of 25%, in fact, reliably, I have paid a negative tax rate. I barely made it into the negatives this year, but that is because apparently we punish low-income people for the crime of attempting to supplement low earned incomes by saving and investing.
Click to expand...
If you're a productive employee then you pay taxes. The company you work for collects the surplus value and they pay your taxes in their name. If you would like we could drop their tax rate 10%, give you a comparative raise, then tax you at 10% to make you feel better about it.

:shrug: I don't know about "clamp down", in some cases of habitual abusers, perhaps. But I'm a somewhat optimistic fellow, and my bet would be that the majority of those folks are simply following the deeply flawed short-term incentive structure that we give them. When a working mom faces a welfare cliff, of course she isn't going to try to earn more income - why in the world would she lower her childrens' standard of living in order to work more?
Click to expand...
Same myth again, you don't lose money when you work.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
HenryChinaski said:
Yes they do. Ohh, my favorite right wing buzz word "entitlement program":) Not "I work a full time job for a company that doesn't pay me enough to stock my pantry with enough food, so I have to supplement my dietary needs through a government program funded by the tax-payer"
Click to expand...

If you don't make enough at Walmart to live the lifestyle you wish to live, I would suggest you increase your skillset for a better paying employer, or do something that makes you an invaluable member and subject to a merit increase. If that's still not an option, I'd suggest you get 3 or 4 roommates. Maybe I don't think Walmart employees should have their own apartment and new car. I don't believe that they've earned it.

Call it whatever you want, but you're an entitlement baby.
 
I work in a mail room for one of the big three accounting firms. Before I got hired they had outsourced the labor through a third party company. The employees were bottom barrel workers making $9.00 and they got $9.00 worth of work. At the time they hired me they changed their ideology and went in-house with the hiring. They pay me nearly double and they receive top notch service and loyalty for that salary. A business gets what it pays for when it comes to their workers.
 
Last edited:
Erod said:
I swear, these Democrats have a third-grade understanding of economics.

Fewer workers will be asked to do more work. Companies budget for employee overhead, and profit margins are set according to risk. Those numbers will not change.

The only result of this will be higher unemployment. Way to go, nimrods.
Click to expand...

3-25-2010_Hank_Johnson_Guam_Tip_Over.wmv - YouTube

THIRD grade education period above is the link to hank johnson thinking an island would flip over. I am sure you have seen this before BUT darn it needs to be repeated time and time again. Just so NONE forget it.:peace
 
Gipper said:
If you don't make enough at Walmart to live the lifestyle you wish to live, I would suggest you increase your skillset for a better paying employer, or do something that makes you an invaluable member and subject to a merit increase. If that's still not an option, I'd suggest you get 3 or 4 roommates. Maybe I don't think Walmart employees should have their own apartment and new car. I don't believe that they've earned it.

Call it whatever you want, but you're an entitlement baby.
Click to expand...
In theory that sounds great. However not everyone is cut out for that, for whatever reason. Some are destined to just be worker bees. And if every single person managed to go all the way and become a Doctor, Lawyer or Indian chief, then there'd be a hell of a lot of Unemployed Doctor's, Lawyers and Indian Chiefs stocking shelves and sweeping floors.
 
HenryChinaski said:
Bull crap. Wal-Mart rakes in record profits while they pay wages where their employees must utilize tax payer funds to supplement their basic needs. There is something seriously wrong with that. We just don't agree with what that something is.
Click to expand...

Then if someone has a problem with Wal-Mart and it's practices, they should seek employment elsewhere? Perhaps at the Costco touted as paying a 'fair living wage'?

What is 'seriously wrong' is a government believing they can correct a problem by involving themselves in people's personal lives.
 
HenryChinaski said:
In theory that sounds great. However not everyone is cut out for that, for whatever reason. Some are destined to just be worker bees. And if every single person managed to go all the way and become a Doctor, Lawyer or Indian chief, then there'd be a hell of a lot of Unemployed Doctor's, Lawyers and Indian Chiefs stocking shelves and sweeping floors.
Click to expand...

Well, according to your analogy, you seem to be an indian that wants to be a chief. Society works better when people know their roles.

And you're right - not everyone is cut out for that. Not everyone is also cut out to own a car less than 5 years old and have their own place large enough to walk around freely. Some people are cut out to live like Mexicans. Bummer for them.
 
Gipper said:
They wouldn't have to. Walmart will never have a labor shortage, due to the low-skilled nature of their employees.
Click to expand...

I dunno.. If potential employees didn't have the ability to fall back on welfare to the extent they currently do, it wouldn't be worth it for many to take a job where they make an amount that doesn't allow them take care of themselves. I would guess that some would drop out of the labor market, creating a shortage.
 
Gipper said:
Well, according to your analogy, you seem to be an indian that wants to be a chief. Society works better when people know their roles.

And you're right - not everyone is cut out for that. Not everyone is also cut out to own a car less than 5 years old and have their own place large enough to walk around freely. Some people are cut out to live like Mexicans. Bummer for them.
Click to expand...
I live in an area with a very large Mexican population. What do they live like?
 
Verax said:
I admitted my mistake and then went on to explain my reasoning. For some reason you want to harp on about this but then bizarrely make the same mistake I made and then turn around and try to correct me using my own previous, incorrect terminology. :doh

Quoting election era Republican propaganda against Obama is not very convincing that the middle class is improving. That article is so deceptive and disingenuous it is eye rolling bad... like I said, election era propaganda.

I cannot compare Wal-Mart and Costco because they are not identical? Really? How does that make sense.

Compare all the retail stores and you'll find Wal-Mart pays by far the least and all the others pay significantly more. Wal-Mart's ability to stay union free and pay poverty wages is their greatest achievement.
Click to expand...

it's only propaganda because it discredits what you say so therefore it is wrong. if you have read the links. it was the Pew research center that did the actual work.
so i guess now they are a propaganda machine now. thanks for clearing that up.

comparing apples and orange is dishonest and disingenuous. costco and walmart are not even remotely the same.
comparing walmart to target or sears or something would be more accurate. when compared they all pay about the same.

Why Can
the chart here actually compares walmart to costco which shows exactly why it is invald to to compare them.

some interesting facts. walmart has 10x more stores than costco.
costco only employ's about 100k people. walmart employee's 1m people in the US. so they have about 10x the employee's
i was wrong before. costco only carries about 4k items in each store which mostly are boxed and come on pallets with no stocking needing.

walmart 140k skews all of which have to be unpacked and stocked on shelves.
costco also requires a members ship and carries a higher price point.

if costco would to mirror walmart they would have the same pay rate.
 
HenryChinaski said:
Yes they do. Ohh, my favorite right wing buzz word "entitlement program":) Not "I work a full time job for a company that doesn't pay me enough to stock my pantry with enough food, so I have to supplement my dietary needs through a government program funded by the tax-payer"
Click to expand...

That's a flawed argument. The company is properly paying a wage that the market, not the company, has determined is the equilibrium amount for that job. The employee accepts that amount. We are in economic heaven, as all is aligned! It is up to the employee to make himself more skilled and valuable if he wants to earn more money. Not up to the government, the company, or me to increase that person's income.
 
Anthony60 said:
That's a flawed argument. The company is properly paying a wage that the market, not the company, has determined is the equilibrium amount for that job. The employee accepts that amount. We are in economic heaven, as all is aligned! It is up to the employee to make himself more skilled and valuable if he wants to earn more money. Not up to the government, the company, or me to increase that person's income.
Click to expand...

Not a flawed argument at all. WalMart is doing quite well financially yet they pay a wage where a large percentage of their employees still need WIC. Maybe they could get a second job? Wal-Mart has rigged that as well by assigning varying shifts and hours making a second gig nearly impossible. WalMart knows exactly what they're doing in keeping their worker bees close to the hive. Walmart also reaps the tax payers money when their employees spend that assistance money at work. It's a huge scam. I work for a company that is as large as Walmart in size, scope and name in the accounting industry and I seriously doubt that any of my employers worker bees are on welfare. Walmart are just cheap asses and playing the taxpayer for suckers.
 
HenryChinaski said:
Not a flawed argument at all. WalMart is doing quite well financially yet they pay a wage where a large percentage of their employees still need WIC. Maybe they could get a second job? Wal-Mart has rigged that as well by assigning varying shifts and hours making a second gig nearly impossible. WalMart knows exactly what they're doing in keeping their worker bees close to the hive. Walmart also reaps the tax payers money when their employees spend that assistance money at work. It's a huge scam. I work for a company that is as large as Walmart in size, scope and name in the accounting industry and I seriously doubt that any of my employers worker bees are on welfare. Walmart are just cheap asses and playing the taxpayer for suckers.
Click to expand...

If those folks aren't making enough money, they should get their asses in gear and get a higher paying job.

It's counter-productive to reward a person's lack of ambition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom