• 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!

Federal minimum wage rate.

Labor needs to be able to afford our first world economy. And, we should have no homeless or poverty in our Republic since it impedes the functioning of our republican forms of Government.
 
Damn fine.

The failure of 1929 was twofold.

First, it was a worldwide depression. And it was made worse because most governments had their money tied to a fixed commodity, like gold or silver. The price of those goes up, the value of the currency goes up.

In the US it was made worse not by capitalism, but speculation and easy credit. When stocks and bonds became due (bought on credit), people could not pay the amount owed and the values snowballed down. And as the price of gold and silver increased, it made the currency more valuable and harder to spend for common things.

Most people do not look at the entire picture. Here is a simple example. If money is tied to silver and it is $1 an ounce, then things are easily affordable. If silver jumps to $2 an ounce, now the currency is more valuable, and people stop spending as the money is of more value. This removes money from circulation, causing a depression (which is the opposite of a recession - where money becomes worthless). In a depression, you hold your money instead of paying off debts, because it is worth more. It is also hard to find a job because wages have also increased. The $1 you made prior is not the value of $2.

This once again was worldwide, not regional just to the US. In Germany, it was the opposite. They did not suffer a depression, but a run-away recession with money becoming less valuable because they tried to print their way out of trouble. In the US and most countries they decoupled their currencies from a commodity and this let it assume a more reasonable value in keeping with the economy at the time.
 
This removes money from circulation, causing a depression.

And now we know that the obvious solution to that problem is the Fed as lender of last resort. That way panic does not spread from Wall street to Main Street!
 
The failure of 1929 was twofold.

First, it was a worldwide depression. And it was made worse because most governments had their money tied to a fixed commodity, like gold or silver. The price of those goes up, the value of the currency goes up.

In the US it was made worse not by capitalism, but speculation and easy credit. When stocks and bonds became due (bought on credit), people could not pay the amount owed and the values snowballed down. And as the price of gold and silver increased, it made the currency more valuable and harder to spend for common things.

Most people do not look at the entire picture. Here is a simple example. If money is tied to silver and it is $1 an ounce, then things are easily affordable. If silver jumps to $2 an ounce, now the currency is more valuable, and people stop spending as the money is of more value. This removes money from circulation, causing a depression (which is the opposite of a recession - where money becomes worthless). In a depression, you hold your money instead of paying off debts, because it is worth more. It is also hard to find a job because wages have also increased. The $1 you made prior is not the value of $2.

This once again was worldwide, not regional just to the US. In Germany, it was the opposite. They did not suffer a depression, but a run-away recession with money becoming less valuable because they tried to print their way out of trouble. In the US and most countries they decoupled their currencies from a commodity and this let it assume a more reasonable value in keeping with the economy at the time.

It has been decades since I looked at the events of 1929 . Thank you for a damn fine refresher.
 
Moot point. States are raising their minimum wages without the Feds interfering. And again only about 1 million Americans at any given time make the fictitious minimum wage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The failure of 1929 was twofold.

First, it was a worldwide depression. And it was made worse because most governments had their money tied to a fixed commodity, like gold or silver. The price of those goes up, the value of the currency goes up.

In the US it was made worse not by capitalism, but speculation and easy credit. When stocks and bonds became due (bought on credit), people could not pay the amount owed and the values snowballed down. And as the price of gold and silver increased, it made the currency more valuable and harder to spend for common things.

Most people do not look at the entire picture. Here is a simple example. If money is tied to silver and it is $1 an ounce, then things are easily affordable. If silver jumps to $2 an ounce, now the currency is more valuable, and people stop spending as the money is of more value. This removes money from circulation, causing a depression (which is the opposite of a recession - where money becomes worthless). In a depression, you hold your money instead of paying off debts, because it is worth more. It is also hard to find a job because wages have also increased. The $1 you made prior is not the value of $2.

This once again was worldwide, not regional just to the US. In Germany, it was the opposite. They did not suffer a depression, but a run-away recession with money becoming less valuable because they tried to print their way out of trouble. In the US and most countries they decoupled their currencies from a commodity and this let it assume a more reasonable value in keeping with the economy at the time.

The point is, capitalism "died in 1929" and socialism has been bailout capitalism ever since. We have our first world economy due to the command economics of FDR, not capitalism.

How much of the world is still in the third world, with capitalism? Socialism is second world or better.
 
It has been decades since I looked at the events of 1929 . Thank you for a damn fine refresher.

The funny thing is, most people have the actual collapse wrong.

First of all, it was not even the first crash. The London Stock Market had a similar crash the month before, this was over a month afterwards.

And since July, analysts had been stating that the market had likely peaked, and had actually been on a slide since then. But there were 2 things that made this worse than expected. Today, we would say that what had happened was a "bubble", and as we now know all to well, it was about to pop.

The crash the month before of the London Exchange had caused a lot of people to start pulling out their money, and those that had been buying stocks on credit were worried, as they might not be able to make their call at the end of the month. Also many were invested in commodities as well, which had to be sold off by the end of the month. But while they had not crashed, commodity markets were flat. So without that as a way to recoup their losses many "doubled down" in stocks.

So we had a perfect storm. Bank notes (or at least the interest on them) coming due, a flat commodities market, and people that were leveraged to the hilt desperate to get their money back out. And on top of that people saying things were already past peak and dropping in price. That made 24 October the tipping point. People started to sell, which caused prices to dip, causing more sales. It soon turned into a panic, then a route. Prices were pushed down more, triggering more sales. And by the time it was done, the market dropped 10% in a single day.

And at the time, the experts were not worried. Nobody jumped from buildings, there were no mass suicides. The market just considered this to be the correction that they had been expected, and on Friday trading was light, but actually fairly stable. But on Monday, panic set in again, and it dropped 13%. This time full blown panic set in, and on Tuesday, it dropped another 12%. Over 35%, in less than a week. And the next day, another 11%. The DJIA dropped from 381.2 in September, to 299.5 the day before the crash. By 28 October it was at 230.7. It rebounded the next day to 260.5, then began a long slow slide that by 12 November was at 199.0.

And things just continued to slide like that. People lost their trust in the market, so pulled their money and put it into other things. Banks were the main place to hold money. But by 1931 companies were producing less because people were not spending their money. This then snowballed. Companies laid off people, which caused even more to save what they had. Companies started to go belly up, and banks lost the money they had loaned them. More companies needed loans, but the banks were already overextended and could not give the loans. People started to pull their money out, either to live off of, or looking to put it into more scure storage, like gold and silver. Banks now had negative liquidity, and started to fail.

The Great Depression was not any one thing. And it was hardly local, every nation on the planet suffered, from Germany and England to China, Argentina, and the US. And it took months for the experts to realize what had happened.

Myself, I love this period in history, because it shows how little most people understand how this crash worked, and how any crash works. I have seen many bubbles over the decades, and even predicted 2 of them. The "Dot Com" was one of the funniest, as for years I had told people it was a bubble and they ignored me, because the stock prices kept going up and up. Then it popped, and I actually knew people who were "Dot Com Millionaires" who suddenly had nothing. And they could not even hope to recoup their money at the bankruptcy sale, all those companies owned was all to often just office equipment, and a warehouse that they trans-shipped out of. Not even much actual inventory to sell, they had become experts in JIT inventory control.

And this also causes one of my most fun examples which shows how little people understand the stock market, or the crash. I challenge people to tell me how much money was lost on that day, and they always give funny answers. 100 million, 100 billion, and they always look stunned when I told them no money was lost. When I sold somebody $1,000 in stock a few months before and then it became worthless, the money did not vanish. It is still right in my pocket, where I put it when they gave me their money. They lost $1,000, I did not. They money did not vanish, it is just not their money any more.
 
Moot point. States are raising their minimum wages without the Feds interfering. And again only about 1 million Americans at any given time make the fictitious minimum wage.
Razorsedge64, due to wage differentials, the minimum wage rate effects upon the rates of USA’s lowest 40 percentiles of employees, range from critical to substantial.

To some extent the minimum rate bolsters the median wage rate. If there were no federal minimum wage rates to bolster state and local minimums, other government jurisdictions in the USA would find it less feasible, if not unfeasible to sustain their higher minimum rates.

This problem is more apparent among enterprises approximately near the common borders of states or county jurisdiction that have substantially different sales taxes or minimum wage rates. The enterprises on the higher rate sides of those approximately close borders are then at some competitive disadvantages.

If the federal minimum wage rate statutes were eliminated, what are likely to be USA states net detrimental deliberate or unintentional harm to other states' economies? Particularly the consequences between neighboring states? The Constitutional Convention of 1787 addressed such issues and included the commerce clause within our constitution.
Respectfully, Supposn
 
Moot point. States are raising their minimum wages without the Feds interfering. And again only about 1 million Americans at any given time make the fictitious minimum wage.
Razoredge64, 40%of USA’s employees who earning the lowest wage rates are consequential, and the numbers or portions of those employees earning precisely $7.25 per hour are effectively much less consequential to our economy.
Those states with minimums wage rates higher than the federal minimum, were better enabled to enact and sustain their rates, due to the federal minimum wage rate. The federal government did not interfere, but rather it bolstered state and local governments’ higher minimum wage rates.
Respectfully, Supposn
 
.

To some extent the minimum rate bolsters the median wage rate.

More importantly it makes America uncompetitive and drives millions and millions of jobs off shore much like unions did a generation ago. Leave it to liberals to get everything 100 wrong!
 
More importantly it makes America uncompetitive and drives millions and millions of jobs off shore much like unions did a generation ago. Leave it to liberals to get everything 100 wrong!

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.

All we need is unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed to get more market friendliness out of socialism.

We don't need minimum wage jobs in our first world economy; go ahead and automate for the bottom line.
 
Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.

.

10 Nobel Prizes in the last 30 years. What a surprise Danny the liberal got another one wrong!!
 
Razoredge64, 40%of USA’s employees who earning the lowest wage rates are consequential,

The percent of US workers who make minimum wage is 2.3%.

I think the term you meant to use is "inconsequential".

And tell me, what are those "bottom 40%" doing to get themselves out of their hole? Are they trying to learn new skills? Are they trying to relocate to where the cost of living is lower? Are they taking advantage of programs to help them earn more?

This is the thing, I have no interest in helping minimum workers, who expect to do as little as possible and make wages not in keeping with their work. I have not made "minimum wage" since I was in High School. And even that was for only 3 months, I got a performance raise and promotion after that. I simply can not comprehend somebody in their 30s complaining about only making minimum wage. What in the hell have they done in the previous 12 years to earn more? Have they never learned a single skill, nor worked long enough to get a raise simply through longevity?

And if their company never gave them a raise for time worked, why in the hell are they still there? Leave, and find another job. It is only minimum wage you say, so leave and find a company that will pay you more at least because you were a good employee if nothing else.

Hell, even delivery drivers at Domino's make more than that.
 
The percent of US workers who make minimum wage is 2.3%.
I think the term you meant to use is "inconsequential".

And tell me, what are those "bottom 40%" doing to get themselves out of their hole? Are they trying to learn new skills? Are they trying to relocate to where the cost of living is lower? Are they taking advantage of programs to help them earn more?

This is the thing, I have no interest in helping minimum workers, who expect to do as little as possible and make wages not in keeping with their work. I have not made "minimum wage" since I was in High School. And even that was for only 3 months, I got a performance raise and promotion after that. I simply can not comprehend somebody in their 30s complaining about only making minimum wage. What in the hell have they done in the previous 12 years to earn more? Have they never learned a single skill, nor worked long enough to get a raise simply through longevity?

And if their company never gave them a raise for time worked, why in the hell are they still there? Leave, and find another job. It is only minimum wage you say, so leave and find a company that will pay you more at least because you were a good employee if nothing else.

Hell, even delivery drivers at Domino's make more than that.
Oozlefinch, almost all Domino drivers provide their employers with a vehicle that’s usually motor driven. There's consideration for the value of the vehicle, insurance risk if the employers do not themselves cover what is a much higher cost commercial risk, and all of the other vehicle operating and maintain expenses. Certainly those Pizza delivery drivers should be compensated in excess of $7.25 per hour.
... due to wage differentials, the minimum wage rate effects upon the rates of USA’s lowest 40 percentiles of employees, range from critical to substantial. …
… 40%of USA’s employees who earning the lowest wage rates are consequential, and the numbers or portions of those employees earning precisely $7.25 per hour are effectively much less consequential to our economy. …
Oozlefinch, you correctly pointed out that my grammar was poor. The wording should have been, 40 % of all USA employees are earning lower wage rates and their low wage rates are economically detrimental to our nation. How many or what portion of those low wage rate employees earning precisely $7.25 per hour are of no particular consequence to our economy.

Your post demeans 40% of all USA wage earners. If only a fifth of those lower wage rate earners were substantially at fault for their own lower wage-rates, would you still have contempt for the entire lowest earning 40 percentile of all USA wage earners? If only a quarter of those lower wage rate earners were substantially at fault, would you still have contempt for 40% of USA's wage earners? If no more than half of those lower wage rate earners were substantially at fault, would you still have contempt for 40% of USAs wage earners? Respectfully, Supposn
//////
Refer to: Sodom and Gomorrah - Wikipedia Judgement upon Sodom and Gomorrah .
The story of the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah is told in Genesis 18–19. Three men came to Abraham in the plains of Mamre. After the angels received the hospitality of Abraham and Sarah, the Lord revealed to Abraham that he would confirm what he had heard against Sodom and Gomorrah, "and because their sin is very grievous."
In response, Abraham inquired of the Lord if he would spare the city if 50 righteous people were found in it, to which the Lord agreed he would not destroy it for the sake of the righteous yet dwelling therein. Abraham then inquired of God for mercy at lower numbers (first 45, then 40, then 30, then 20, and finally at 10), with the Lord agreeing each time.[18] Two angels were sent to Sodom and were met by Abraham's nephew Lot, who convinced the angels to lodge with him, and they ate with Lot.
Genesis 19:4–5 described what followed, which confirmed its end].
 
Oozlefinch, almost all Domino drivers provide their employers with a vehicle that’s usually motor driven. There's consideration for the value of the vehicle, insurance risk if the employers do not themselves cover what is a much higher cost commercial risk, and all of the other vehicle operating and maintain expenses. Certainly those Pizza delivery drivers should be compensated in excess of $7.25 per hour. Oozlefinch, you correctly pointed out that my grammar was poor. The wording should have been, 40 % of all USA employees are earning lower wage rates and their low wage rates are economically detrimental to our nation. How many or what portion of those low wage rate employees earning precisely $7.25 per hour are of no particular consequence to our economy.

But you seem to miss my actual point. Nobody is forcing these people to live at minimum wage.

When I hear of people crying at making minimum wage for years, my first question is "What is wrong with this person, that they can work for 10 years and still be making the minimum?" That is a problem with them, and this is hard to deny.

Are they completely unable to take advantage of any training programs, or finding ways to improve their own abilities to get a better paying job? Are they completely unable to move to where jobs are more plentiful and pay is higher? Or maybe they are just such minimal employees that is all they can ever strive to be?

BTW, where I live the minimum is now $12 an hour. And it has been crushing the poor. Most companies now for minimum wage only offer 20 hours or so a week. I know quite a few people working 2 and 3 jobs, where once they only had to work 1 job a week. And because minimum skill workers are so common, many now work them for 6 months or so, then let them go and hire another at the bare minimum. They only retain the top 20%, and start to give them more money per hour to keep them, and simply throw out the less skilled and hire yet another just as poorly skilled for the minimal requirement jobs.

And why so many like lemmings continue to try and live like this, I have absolutely no idea. Although I also recognize that most people are either lazy, or believe that they are entitled to "things" they have not actually deserved. But my example of Domino's was an example though. An employee providing more than the bare minimum, and getting paid more than the minimum in compensation. And if you want to work at Domino's and not drive, you can do so.

But the basic pay for a pizza maker that does not drive is generally minimum wage. As a driver, if I made pizzas I was still paid at my rate as a driver. And if you could prove you could do both, you got paid even more per hour than somebody who was just a driver. I worked for that company for a year, not because I needed the money but to help a friend who was a manager at one and was always complaining at her "flake drivers". Within 2 weeks I was the highest paid driver there, with the most deliveries per hour of anybody in the district. Add in tips, and I was actually making almost as much as I was at my computer job.

Of course, as I said I also did a lot more than the "bare minimum". I realized if I could make pizzas I got paid more, so spent 2 weeks doing just that, passed the test, and got the raise. I also busted my ass when delivering, taking 2-3 out at a time and plotting my route with a laptop and GPS that I had bought (this was 2005 - car GPS was flakey and expensive so I used a laptop). Yes, I spent my own money for the laptop and GPS, an investment that paid me back many times over due to my ability to deliver multiple orders at once and still in the time frame required.

And interestingly enough, last month I made the decision to change careers. After over 30 years as a computer tech, I have seen the writing on the wall that the market is over-saturated. Both jobs and pay are decreasing. So for the next 2 years I am in training to become an automotive and diesel mechanic. That is a job field where the demand is increasing every year, as well as the pay. And because it is in demand everywhere, big town and small I am going to use this to get out of California once I graduate.
 
Oozlefinch, you continue discussing “THE” minimum wage rate, whatever it might effectively be in different states or counties. The minimum wage rate effects approximately 40% of USA employees wage rates.
Those effects upon their rates range from critical to those low rage rate employees earning at or near the minimum rate where they are located, to substantial upon those within that lowest 40 percentile’s wage rate bracket that are of higher wage rates.

We’re Not discussing the $7.25 federal, or the $15.39 San Francisco minimum rate. We’re discussing the rates of USA’s 40% of employees earning the lowest bracket of wage rates. Their low wage rates have a detrimental effect upon our nation’s economy. How many or what proportion of them are earning the precise rate of $7.25 per hour, or a higher rate in some counties, is of absolutely no importance.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
But you seem to miss my actual point. Nobody is forcing these people to live at minimum wage. …
Oozlefinch, "Nobody is forcing these people to live at minimum wage” is among the more foolish sentences that I’ve read. Your implying that so many people choose to be poor? So many aren’t sufficiently intelligent to consider all their options, and they all have the same opportunities and advantages as you? The working poor are not a tiny segment of our population. Many cannot even reasonably function and others have great responsibilities that entrap them.

I don’t suppose you’re particularly and uniquely blessed, but I also don’t suppose you’re uniquely disadvantaged. There are many people that are dealing with conditions and circumstances far beyond what you and I could or wish to endure, or even beyond our conceptions. Think in terms of walking in the other person’s shoes.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Oozlefinch, the advantage of being a car mechanic rather than a programmer or a systems analyst is your job can’t be performed in India, if the car’s in Texas.
I wish you well. Respectfully, Supposn
 
Think in terms of walking in the other person’s shoes.

You mean think like a bigoted liberal ie in terms of giving them welfare and encouraging them to reproduce so the problem will always grow larger and them proclaiming yourself to be morally superior for supporting welfare!!
 
Oozlefinch, "Nobody is forcing these people to live at minimum wage” is among the more foolish sentences that I’ve read. Your implying that so many people choose to be poor? So many aren’t sufficiently intelligent to consider all their options, and they all have the same opportunities and advantages as you? The working poor are not a tiny segment of our population. Many cannot even reasonably function and others have great responsibilities that entrap them.

I don’t suppose you’re particularly and uniquely blessed, but I also don’t suppose you’re uniquely disadvantaged. There are many people that are dealing with conditions and circumstances far beyond what you and I could or wish to endure, or even beyond our conceptions. Think in terms of walking in the other person’s shoes.

Respectfully, Supposn

I do not believe they "choose" to be poor. But a majority of them are poor because of poor life choices. And that is on them.

Not staying in school to graduate. Not bothering to gain any skills so they can get more than minimal skilled jobs. Poor spending habits, poor life choices (drugs, alcohol, etc), criminal backgrounds that prevent people from getting better jobs, the list just goes on and on and on.

Good example, my oldest keeps going from minimum wage job to minimum wage job, primarily because of his life choices. He has a criminal record, which blocks him from a lot of jobs. And being a chronic pot smoker, that eliminated him from a great many more. He has had offers at a lot of places that pay well over minimum wage. But the moment they tell him to go down and take a drug test prior to hiring, he thanks them and leaves. He lost a job from Walmart, the local Indian Casino, and the City Parks and Rec department because of that.

And as I said, that is entirely on him. There is absolutely no reason for a person to be making minimum wage after a year in a job, unless they are sub-par employees. Late all the time, poor job quality, the list goes on and on. And I really could not care less about "walking in their shoes". The only time I did not get an "annual raise" at a job, it was a job that paid well over minimum wage to start with. If somebody is so poor at their job that they can not get one of those, then that is the very reason why they remain locked at that wage. Their decisions and nothing else but.

And no, outsourcing is not the problem that many people seem to think it is in the computer industry. I worked at an IT company that outsourced a lot of their coding. What went to India was the brute force massive coding segments, which ran the behind-the-scenes part of the code. All of the clean-up, interface work, and the rest was all done in-country. The top tier programmers in California, the second layer in Oregon.

The same with the technical support. All in Oregon, except for the after-hours support which was in India. But from 5am to 9pm Pacific Time, it was all done in the US. Only when the call center closed for the night did we send it overseas.

The real problem in the entire IT industry is that it has become oversaturated. Schools keep churning out IT professionals, and for over 5 years now the supply has grown much faster than the demand. My cousin with 20 years in the industry and a BA in computer science recently took a job with the Department of Corrections. Another cousin who graduated with a BA in Programming (specifically game design) has not been able to find a job in the last 9 months. Yet another who graduated a year and a half ago in graphic arts is working outside her field.

The market is simply oversaturated. That is the problem when people jump into a field that seems to have great pay, not realizing that there are thousands others who are thinking the same thing. And the IT industry has not really grown that much in over a decade. Everybody I know of in the industry is saying the exact same thing. If they have a job great, if they loose it they will likely be screwed.

Mechanics is actually growing. The last of the "Baby Boomers" will be retiring in just over a decade, and every year the number of cars on the road grows even larger. And a lot of new technologies are now hitting the street that the older mechanics know nothing about. This is why most who own a hybrid have little choice but to take their car to a dealer if they want it serviced.
 
Oozlefinch, you continue discussing “THE” minimum wage rate, whatever it might effectively be in different states or counties. The minimum wage rate effects approximately 40% of USA employees wage rates.
Those effects upon their rates range from critical to those low rage rate employees earning at or near the minimum rate where they are located, to substantial upon those within that lowest 40 percentile’s wage rate bracket that are of higher wage rates.

We’re Not discussing the $7.25 federal, or the $15.39 San Francisco minimum rate. We’re discussing the rates of USA’s 40% of employees earning the lowest bracket of wage rates. Their low wage rates have a detrimental effect upon our nation’s economy. How many or what proportion of them are earning the precise rate of $7.25 per hour, or a higher rate in some counties, is of absolutely no importance.

Respectfully, Supposn

And guess what else we already have?

PELL Grants, BOG Grants, and a slew of other grant and aid programs to help people gain skills in order to improve themselves.

And what exactly is stopping those people from going back to school, so they can learn a new skill to improve their employability?

Want to know how I got back into computers in 1990? I started hanging out at 2 different computer stores, and did work for free. I consider it an apprenticeship, and within a year I was running one of those computer stores. In those pre-Internet days I taught myself BBS systems, and made a fair amount setting them up for businesses. Then when the Internet first took off, both my fiancée and myself taught ourselves HTML.

You see, this is what successful people do. They work hard to improve themselves. Lazy people, can not be bothered to do that so they remain eternally in jobs where the toughest question is "Would you like fries and a drink with that?"

I said it before, I say it again. I could not give a damn about "minimum wage employees". To me, if you are 35 and making minimum wage, you are a looser. In 17 years of life you could not be bothered to learn a single skill, or remain at a job long enough to get a raise. That is not the fault of the wage, that is not the fault of the employer. That is your fault, and nobodies fault but your own.

Want to be like me and not give a damn about minimum wage? The answer is simple, gain some skills. It is not that hard, it can even cost you nothing. But it does take work. That is how my mom went from being a low level accountant to a well paid programmer in less than 5 years. She knew her department was going to be phased out by computers, and went back to school to learn how to program them. By the time she graduated she was making more money than her old boss, who got laid off.
 
Oozlefinch, you never confronted and explicitly answered these questions:
Oozlefinch, … Your post demeans 40% of all USA wage earners. If only a fifth of those lower wage rate earners were substantially at fault for their own lower wage-rates, would you still have contempt for the entire lowest earning 40 percentile of all USA wage earners? If only a quarter of those lower wage rate earners were substantially at fault, would you still have contempt for 40% of USA's wage earners? If no more than half of those lower wage rate earners were substantially at fault, would you still have contempt for 40% of USAs wage earners? …
. Your next responding post stated your disbelief “they”, (the lowest earning 40% of USA employees?) “"choose" to be poor. But a majority of them are poor because of poor life choices. And that is on them”. In your opinion, the majority of lowest earning 40 percentiles of USA employees low wage rates are primarily or entirely due to their “poor life choices”? I wonder about these detrimental life choices that could not or were not repaired.

Did they choose the wrong parents? (My youngest assures me that he may someday forgive us, but he’ll never forget that my wife and I aren’t wealthy). The color of skin, the neighborhood where raised, parent’s and other relatives’ incomes, professions, or social positions are all strong statistical indicators of children’s future income brackets. What of accidents and heredity? Were they born or later became less physically or mentally able? Many unfortunate conditions and situations can be somewhat remedied if you have the capabilities and/or the necessary costs of remedies.

[There’s great satisfaction when you have the means to purchase remedies for members of your family. It’s particularly satisfying when you have good reason to believe that the remedial treatment will likely not be successful. When a family has less money, some family members future may be sacrificed, to pay for that financial risk.]

Each of us have only one lifetime. When fortune or misfortune is occurring to us and our family, statistical probabilities have less meaning to us as individuals.
Respectfully, Supposn
 
Back
Top Bottom