DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Poverty and The Brain

If you feel paying for these programs with your tax dollars is the best way of dealing with the issue, maybe not. Do you believe all these programs came about after 1968?

Food stamps started in 1961.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/short-history-snap

The Fair Housing Act for subsidized housing passed in 1968.

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/aboutfheo/history

These are not some new programs as you suggest.

Point being, how much people get in food stamps and how much housing assistance they receive is based upon their income. The higher their income, the less they are allowed.

Increasing minimum wage will help lower the benefits people receive.

Yes I looked it up trying to answer my own question and saw where they began in the 60's and 70's, they are not new.
I couldn't find how much they paid so I asked.

Now, are you sure that raising the minimum wage a few bucks will not knock those people out of eligibility for assistance thus lowering their total income? It may save us money while pushing them under the bridges to live.

Saving money is good but not at the expense of losing the safety net and throwing people onto the streets.

So, food stamps started in 1961, fair housing in 1968.

And what have we accomplished?

Welfare, for lack of a better word, does NOT seem to be getting people helped up. In fact, it seems to be keeping people down, does it not?

How many millions of people are currently getting checks from the gov't.?

Poverty is a huge issue in this country - but until the attitude of those getting checks from the gov't. changes, it's only going to get worse.

Wanna help yourself? HELP yourself.

To help yourself, society can't accept the bottom portion of the working class to keep going backwards for decades.

You seem to keep dismissing that if minimum wage goes up, these people you are talking about get more pay and less benefits. You don't believe that a step in the right direction is at least a starting point?

I don't think that's the case at all. Anyone who has a business will tell you that they *don't* want a minimum wage employee. Minimum wage laborers tend to be uneducated, bad at problem solving, unreliable, and more prone to theft of time, product or capital.

This is fine if you're a large corporation who can afford to basically dummy proof your lower level operations, but if you're running a small business, a prime goal should be the ability to afford higher labor costs than minimum wage. It's a duplicitous balance, and one that should measured with care. At the end of the day, should a McDonald's fry cook be paid $15 an hour? No. But the reality of our economy is that it's hard to get by on less than $10-12 and hour. And the larger percentage of people who can't get by, the worse off the society.

I think this is more of a problem with capitalism as an institution rather than a byproduct of just social programs.

Gotta start somewhere. Minimum wage for minimum skills seems about right.

Again, as per gage, we're talking 5% of the population - teens included. I have to believe very few people stay at minimum wage for long - if they do 2 things: Show up for work on time - and do a good job.


Again, I'll take you to this company not more than 13 miles from me. Starting wage is $12 an hour. And they can't find people to work - as in, show up, and follow the work.

My query was based on someone working at least 2 full time jobs and 1 part time job to support their income. When minimum wage only supports rent at $377 a month (less than half the median in the US) you simply have to work more than 1 job to keep afloat at the minimum wage level.



This would be per 40 hours worked a week. We aren't saying someone working 10 hours a week should be paid a salary commiserate with a 40 hour work week pay schedule.

As for it being impossible to work that hard, I brought this up prior in this thread. I worked 112+ hours a week for 3 months straight on a salary position with no overtime. It's most definitely doable. Is it safe physically? no. do you have any free time? no. It's really easy to rack up hours coming into work for 16+ hours a day, every day, 7 days a week.



The markets have definitely shifted but the minimum wage jobs have always been unskilled labor, whether the unskilled labor is tilling a field or punching a value menu order into a computer screen.

The way capitalism works best is when there is a component of voluntary socialism by those at the top... and that part doesn't exist, at least not on a big enough scale to make a difference.

And as I have said for years, if the individuals aren't going to do it themselves, then the government will mandate it through taxes and legislation, they really have no other choice.

I really think there have been a couple of primary reasons we are where we are. The first is the multi-national conglomerate that really feels no allegiance to any one country, let alone a community or a group of people.. Just read that Goodyear is building a new $500 million plant in Mexico to serve North and South America... Goodyear makes tires in 23 countries and sells them in many more... they may have started in Ohio and owe their beginning to the US, but they are way past that. If they can make them somewhere else and sell them somewhere else and make more money, they are fine with that.

the second big reason is the shift to government assistance and I won't place blame because it has been a gradual shift but since the early decades of the 1900s when government assistance programs started to grow and government began to be considered an actual engine of economic growth rather than a referee to the nations economy, it just seems that the more they grow, the less people feel the need to take care of each other... and the less people take care of each other, the more government assistance we need.. it has been spiraling like that for decades.

That giant sucking sound.

The New World Order.

Very strong points, DC. Thanks for posting your reasonings.

No problem. I think what bugs me most about the Goodyear plant in Mexico is that it is being built to serve North and South America... Two continents and they said this location is ideal to allow them to reach both continents. The city they chose, San Luis Potosi, Mexico is less than a 10 hour drive south of San Antonio, Tx. When you are talking about shipping tires over two entire continents, 10 hours in either direction is nothing. Both cities are about the same distance from a port. There is only one reason they chose San Luis Petosi over a city in south central Texas... and it's not geographic.

I should also clarify by saying I have a deep felt dislike for Goodyear so I'm not going to be biased at all.

Would you mind telling us why you have such a deep dislike for Goodyear? I'm curious.

I assume that was for me?

Well, my father worked for Goodyear for over 20 years at a plant in Maryland... Back in the mid-late 80s, a British guy named James Goldsmith tried to buy them out but they wouldn't sell.. so they fought it. At the time, our family was standard middle class, decent cash in the bank, nice insurance, home paid for... things were good.

He had 21 or 22 years in with nothing but good performance reviews but when they consolidated, he was not offered a position somewhere else but others were... I won't get into the details of how or why he deserved it over others who were offered new positions...

He second mortgaged the house, bought a small business, then soon after got cancer and died within a year. Had he worked with Goodyear, insurance would have paid the medical bills, my mom would have owned the home, had several hundred K in the bank in cash plus another several hundred K in life insurance... instead, almost all of the cash went to his intense (but short) fight with cancer, the house was mortgaged, no life insurance, and a business that was struggling...

Goodyear made a business decision, I get it... but between them and this James Goldsmith dude, they really screwed up my life for a while.

Here's a map showing what "minimum wage" would need to be to afford a person a 2 bedroom apartment.

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/s/minimum-wag...-223544034.html

yeah - for the 5% that earn minimum wage?

That would be awesome - $14 plus per hour in Ohio. My wife has been working 25 years for the same company and is only making $15.65 an hour.

I suppose that, if some stupid minimum wage that supported someone being able to afford a 2 bedroom, were enacted - everyone would be fine paying almost twice as much for food and gas and so on. After all, the dude working at the gas station deserves (in Ohio) $14 plus an hour, right?

Starting off - $14 plus - per hour.

Wouldn't be that bad for the rest of actually....as only 5% (according to gage) make minimum wage.

Just imagine the uproar from those that have put in time - 2 or 3 months.....making what "used" to be the minimum wage.

Imagine the uproar from people that have spent 25 years working and would only be making a dollar an hour or so more than people just starting.

Imagine inflation.

Minimum wage always brings about inflation of market costs, as well as an inflation of labor costs. A lot of people tend to remove that from the equation when it comes to the logic of the minimum wage. But at the same time, a raise in the minimum wage is a necessity at this point. I'm not talking $14-15 an hour, like some are asking. But $10 seems like a fair floor. I've always thought that if a man worked for an honest day's pay, an hour of work should cover him for a meal and a small vice. Maybe that's a #1 at McDonald's and a pack of Pall Malls, but that seems fair enough. When you calculate that the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, the middle class is almost non-existent, and the fact that the common man simply has far more expenses to deal with in this modern age than ever before, anything less than $10 at this point seems unfeasible, whether you're a pimpled teen or someone just looking for a second chance. Labor wages should be somewhat commensurate with the profit their labor brings in. As profits increase, so should pay. And corporate profits are at all-time highs across the board. The ones who get squeezed in the end are low-wage employees and small business owners.

You do realize that is exactly the logic being used to allow the rich to get richer right?

If I'm the guy that put up the $500K to build the fast food restaurant, then it's my capital and my expertise (and the expertise of the corporate system in place) that is bringing in profits.. it's not the guy dropping the french fries in the oil, anybody can do that. If the guy doing it today quits, somebody else will do it tomorrow and the fries will taste exactly the same. They aren't bringing in a dime worth of profit. Nobody is coming to my fast food joint because I have the best fry guy in the area... they are coming because corporate has developed a system that makes consistent fries, I built the restaurant, corporate (and I) provide the marketing.... all of those people are getting paid... everybody is responsible for the profit EXCEPT the guy actually dropping the fries. So as profits increase, pay increases.... my pay. I'm irreplaceable, the fry guy, not so much. That is the logic.

I think the key marker in here is "2 bedroom apartment." If you are single, why do you need a 2BR? If you have a roomate, why aren't they working? If you are married you still don't need a 2BR. I lived for years in a 1BR with my wife.

It's one thing to argue that the minimum wage needs a bump, which I support. But if we start setting the floor at two bedroom apartments to fit some ideal (which seems to be $15/hr) then you aren't going to get much support from working folk. JMHO. I think some parts of the country could stand a $15/hr rate or more (West Coast) but the midwest to me would not be able to support that wage.

On the flip side, I'm going to be doing some business investing soon to supplement some income. I prefer the idea of people making more money than less, so I can cater to them while charging more...

One other thing to consider.

What happened to college tuition when student loan and grant programs came into common use? It exploded.

What would happen if you tie minimum wage to the cost of an apartment? Do you think that the cost of apartments might go up?

Overworked America: 12 Charts That Will...sanity for you.

The graphic arrangement of this article would be impossible to copy and paste, but it's a quick reference.

Cost of an apartment varies depending on location, I would not consider that a barometer of fair value.

Where I live, the University has been growing, and now the students often rent houses, condos and apatments in the small area around the college, it has caused rent to go from 700-800 for a 3br house 5 years ago, to 1800 now, just because the students each have a housing allowance and when you combine 3-4 sometimes 5 in a house, they can afford much more than a typical family.

In this case, students are driving families out of the area.

So using rent as a barometer to set minimum wage would be so widely variable, I don't think it would be a proper scale.


Then if you raised the minimum to $14 or $15, what about those folks working for $13, now they have to come up, even though they were well above the current minimum, profits take a hit, and people get let go. Not all businesses can just raise prices to cover a sudden increase, and survive.

i'm not understanding some of y'all here.

minimum wage is described as a living wage.

it's suppose to rise with cost of living.

the cost of living has steadily gone up, but it seems like y'all are arguing that the minimum wage should stay the same or go down?

how's that work?

On the site below is an interactive graph where you can see the minimum wage throughout the years and it's relative value in today's dollars. In today's dollars it was valued at over $10/hour just for a couple years around 1970, the majority of the time it is between $7-9...

Which, I believe, supports what a lot of people are saying... if they want to consider raising it to $9.50 or even $10, then go for it.. I could support that. But $15/hour? It's never been close to that high.
CNN Money

First we need to define "living wage", does that mean what it costs for 1 person to survive (means food, shelter and clothing, does not include cable TV, internet, cell phones, beer, cigarettes, filet mignon), or does it mean supporting a family.

This, I believe, is the where the 2 sides of the argument differ in their perspective.

I agree with that to a point, but it ignores the cost/value analysis in training new employees, which to an extent has a quantifiable cost. If you've got Harry, whose been there for 5 years, shows up on time, doesn't steal, and knows the fry system inside and out, then you're saving yourself money on the hiring and training of the revolving door that is every new Tom and Dick that comes through. And that's not even taking into consideration the humanist side of it all (which I admit, has no place when viewing things from a corporate perspective). But either way, I'd rather pay a steady guy $10/hour than have a revolving door of $8/hour guys that I have to train, give new uniforms to, and then worry about issues of reliability, theft, etc.

Some mythbusting from the United States Department of Labor regarding the minimum wage - US Dept. of Labor

Some relevant information from the link:

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs.

Not true: A review of 64 studies on minimum wage increases found no discernable effect on employment. Additionally, more than 600 economists, seven of them Nobel Prize winners in economics, have signed onto a letter in support of raising the minimum wage to $10.10 by 2016.

Myth: Small business owners can't afford to pay their workers more, and therefore don't support an increase in the minimum wage.

Not true: A June 2014 survey found that more than 3 out of 5 small business owners support increasing the minimum wage to $10.10. Small business owners believe that a higher minimum wage would benefit business in important ways: 58% say raising the minimum wage would increase consumer purchasing power. 56% say raising the minimum wage would help the economy. In addition, 53% agree that with a higher minimum wage, businesses would benefit from lower employee turnover, increased productivity and customer satisfaction.

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage is bad for businesses.

Not true: Academic research has shown that higher wages sharply reduce employee turnover which can reduce employment and training costs.

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage is bad for the economy.

Not true: Since 1938, the federal minimum wage has been increased 22 times. For more than 75 years, real GDP per capita has steadily increased, even when the minimum wage has been raised.

Myth: The federal minimum wage is higher today than it was when President Reagan took office.

Not true: While the federal minimum wage was only $3.35 per hour in 1981 and is currently $7.25 per hour in real dollars, when adjusted for inflation, the current federal minimum wage would need to be more than $8 per hour to equal its buying power of the early 1980s and more nearly $11 per hour to equal its buying power of the late 1960s. That's why President Obama is urging Congress to increase the federal minimum wage and give low-wage workers a much-needed boost.

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will result in job losses for newly hired and unskilled workers in what some call a “last-one-hired-equals-first-one-fired” scenario.

Not true: Minimum wage increases have little to no negative effect on employment as shown in independent studies from economists across the country. Academic research also has shown that higher wages sharply reduce employee turnover which can reduce employment and training costs.

The Congressional Budget Office makes the following projections regarding wage increase and job losses:

Congressional Budget Office Report

Effects of the $10.10 Option on Employment and Income
Once fully implemented in the second half of 2016, the $10.10 option would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers, or 0.3 percent, CBO projects (see the table below). As with any such estimates, however, the actual losses could be smaller or larger; in CBO’s assessment, there is about a two-thirds chance that the effect would be in the range between a very slight reduction in employment and a reduction in employment of 1.0 million workers.

Many more low-wage workers would see an increase in their earnings. Of those workers who will earn up to $10.10 under current law, most—about 16.5 million, according to CBO’s estimates—would have higher earnings during an average week in the second half of 2016 if the $10.10 option was implemented. Some of the people earning slightly more than $10.10 would also have higher earnings under that option, for reasons discussed below. Further, a few higher-wage workers would owe their jobs and increased earnings to the heightened demand for goods and services that would result from the minimum-wage increase.

The increased earnings for low-wage workers resulting from the higher minimum wage would total $31 billion, by CBO’s estimate. However, those earnings would not go only to low-income families, because many low-wage workers are not members of low-income families. Just 19 percent of the $31 billion would accrue to families with earnings below the poverty threshold, whereas 29 percent would accrue to families earning more than three times the poverty threshold, CBO estimates.

Moreover, the increased earnings for some workers would be accompanied by reductions in real (inflation-adjusted) income for the people who became jobless because of the minimum-wage increase, for business owners, and for consumers facing higher prices. CBO examined family income overall and for various income groups, reaching the following conclusions (see the figure below):

[list]
[*] Once the increases and decreases in income for all workers are taken into account, overall real income would rise by $2 billion.
[*] Real income would increase, on net, by $5 billion for families whose income will be below the poverty threshold under current law, boosting their average family income by about 3 percent and moving about 900,000 people, on net, above the poverty threshold (out of the roughly 45 million people who are projected to be below that threshold under current law).
[*] Families whose income would have been between one and three times the poverty threshold would receive, on net, $12 billion in additional real income. About $2 billion, on net, would go to families whose income would have been between three and six times the poverty threshold.
[*] Real income would decrease, on net, by $17 billion for families whose income would otherwise have been six times the poverty threshold or more, lowering their average family income by 0.4 percent.

Effects of the $9.00 Option on Employment and Income
The $9.00 option would reduce employment by about 100,000 workers, or by less than 0.1 percent, CBO projects. There is about a two-thirds chance that the effect would be in the range between a very slight increase in employment and a reduction in employment of 200,000 workers, in CBO’s assessment. Roughly 7.6 million workers who will earn up to $9.00 per hour under current law would have higher earnings during an average week in the second half of 2016 if this option was implemented, CBO estimates, and some people earning more than $9.00 would have higher earnings as well.

The increased earnings for low-wage workers resulting from the higher minimum wage would total $9 billion; 22 percent of that sum would accrue to families with income below the poverty threshold, whereas 33 percent would accrue to families earning more than three times the poverty threshold, CBO estimates.

For family income overall and for various income groups, CBO estimates the following:

[list]
[*] Once the increases and decreases in income for all workers are taken into account, overall real income would rise by $1 billion.
[*] Real income would increase, on net, by about $1 billion for families whose income will be below the poverty threshold under current law, boosting their average family income by about 1 percent and moving about 300,000 people, on net, above the poverty threshold.
[*] Families whose income would have been between one and three times the poverty threshold would receive, on net, $3 billion in additional real income. About $1 billion, on net, would go to families whose income would have been between three and six times the poverty threshold.
[*] Real income would decrease, on net, by $4 billion for families whose income would otherwise have been six times the poverty threshold or more, lowering their average family income by about 0.1 percent.

Australia has the highest minimum wage rate in the world and rarely has issues with recessions and hasn't had one in 20 years - How Australia Kissed Recessions Good-bye

The Australian unemployment rate is approximately 6% - Link

I remember when this study first came out and my immediate reaction was "Why would this ever be the expectation? A two bedroom apartment for minimum wage?" My wife and I were in a one bedroom apartment for over a year after I had my masters and was working as an engineer for one of the biggest companies in the world, and she was working a job as well.

Do people even understand where the prices of apartments come from? You will *never* be able to afford a two bedroom apartment for minimum wage, no matter how high you make minimum wage. This is literally the stupidest study I have ever seen in economics. It would be more meaningful to say "What would minimum wage have to be for each person to fund their own atomic energy and weapons research program" because then there would at least be some fixed costs that are not dependent on the freaking input variable.

I get what you are saying and on some level I agree with you. But let's be honest, what does it take to train somebody to use an automated french fryer? 20 minutes?


I get it.. you hire Harry at 20 years of age and pay him $10/hour because he has proven to be a dependable kitchen guy in your fast food joint. Let's even say you give him a 4% raise per year to keep up with the cost of living and he can live adequately on his $10/hour... A few years later Harry gets married, Harry and his new wife have a child, then another child... he's now 29 year old Harry with a wife and 2 kids still making the equivalent of minimum wage. Suddenly it's not a livable wage any more. (depending of course on what his wifes situation is).... The obvious answer is that if Harry is that dependable and that good, he won't be the french fry guy for long, his responsibility will increase, he might become a kitchen manager, store manager, etc... that is the path he SHOULD travel. the problem occurs when people don't progress.

I don't see any economic model that shows how you can pay a french fry cook or an unskilled day laborer enough money to support a family.

Living Wage is simple. If I work 40 hours a week I should be able to meet my basic needs. This includes:

basic food
basic housing
basic clothing
basic utilities
basic healthcare

It does not include:

recreation
retirement
education
debt repayment

If people want to move the goal posts and say we should have $15/hr because people need Gucci bags and 2BR apartments, then they will NOT attain their goals and the middle class will not care.

I might be a stick in the mud but I'm far more concerned with the decimation of the middle class. No middle class means no mobility for the lower class.

i would say it should be one person.

Minimum wage at 40 hours a week would get you basic living for one person now.
Just not in the neighborhood you'd like, or with the menu you'd like.

j/c

What I believe some people are overlooking, is when and if minimum wage is raised to let's say $10.00 an hour, it has a much greater impact that let's say a guy who drops the fries.

There are many jobs in many sectors who pay less than $10.00 per hour. While the figures do point out that only 5% of workers make minimum wage, that doesn't account for the number that make less than $10.00 per hour.

The fact that seems to be ignored by so many, is that an increase in the minimum wage would only keep buying power equal to what minimum wage was around 1970. It would only insure that buying power is equal to what it was then. I know when I first started out, my buying power at or near minimum wage was far superior to what minimum wage is now.

However, at the same time minimum wage is going up, most middle class people have seen their wages/salary all but frozen for years, and some have actually taken fairly substantial pay cuts.

The bottom is coming up, but because of inflationary forces, actually stays about the same ....... the middle is either staying put, or dropping, and the top is happily continuing on their way, as the only segment of the population that can actually make money at a rate that outpaces inflation.

As some may know, my last job was as a restaurant general manager for Wendy's. IIRC, one of the premium chicken sandwiches at that time was $3.99. I went through the drive thru a couple of weeks ago, and was stunned to see that the price of a premium chicken sandwich was over $6. All of the other prices have increased similarly. Minimum wage has gone up, but the buying power of that wage is probably unchanged. Unfortunately, for the middle class worker, who has not had a raise in years, his buying power is substantially reduced from years ago. I have a friend who works for Taco Bell, and she told me that Taco Bell has eliminated many management positions, and the remaining manager positions, except for the General Manager, have reverted to an hourly rate instead of a salary. The implication was that these managers are not making anywhere near what they used to make.
We are moving towards a 2 class society, and it's not because we're forcing the lower class down, but because the middle class cannot stay afloat at a level above the lower class.

Minimum wage has not been going up.

Middle class wages for the most have not been going up.

What's been going up is our wealth and that's going up to the people who are already wealthy.

Profits are increasing while the middle class on down is forced to maintain at the same wage level.

Minimum wage has gone up since the middle class essentially froze.

I think that unfairly portrays the position to a degree. It's not rocket science, but it's not just dropping fries and pushing a button. There's more to it than that, and the costs of training adds up. You're getting less bang for your labor buck in terms of having an established employee doing the training, paperwork, the cost of new uniforms, etc. Is it a huge investment of time and money? No, and to a degree I'm playing devil's advocate, but there is an investment. In the end, I think we should be more worried about computers and robots eventually taking these unskilled labor positions more than their wages. Forest for the trees, if you will.



I agree. Like I said, $10/hour seems reasonable. If a guy works an 8 hour shift at McDonald's, he should be able to take an hour of those wages and get a meal and a beer.

Minimum wage has increased, maybe not at the rate some would like, but it has increased

1997 = $5.15/hr
2007 = $5.85/hr
2008 = $6.55/hr
2009 = $7.25/hr

Which is interesting that it was just 6 months after the 2007 hike that we fell into the recession, and then the next 2 years we still had the increases as people were losing jobs.

I'm sure those events were not related to the minimum wage increase, but it is interesting none the less.

If you adjust for inflation, in 1997, that would amount to $7.59/hour in today's buying power. If you're looking at static numbers, they've gone up. If you look at the value of those numbers in terms of buying power, minimum wage has dipped slightly when you factor inflation.

Thanks Jack