Welfare Pays More Than Minimum Wage In 35 States

[Dirty Penguin]

Are you aware that many companies do not give out raises, or are very stingy with them? They actually are fairly common.


What if he can't get anything else? High school students and college students are now having to compete with people who are into their adult hoods for even minimum-wage and low-wage jobs.


Getting a new job isn't as easy as flicking a wand though. Getting a good job that is actually worth staying at is even harder.

I totally agree.......but people like (maninthewilderness) don't seem to understand this. No manner of economic evidence you give these people will ever convince them that there is some serious income inequality in this country.....

 

[maninthewilderness]

Are you aware that many companies do not give out raises, or are very stingy with them? They actually are fairly common.

I don't believe you.
Name the many companies who do not give out raises.
You say that they are common so then you should have no trouble listing hundreds of them.

What if he can't get anything else?

What, do you think that everyone is owed a job?

No one has a Constitutional Right to be employed.

High school students and college students are now having to compete with people who are into their adult hoods for even minimum-wage and low-wage jobs.

Clearly, those adults, who are competing with high school students for a position, have made some very bad life decisions.

In other words:
If you are middle aged and you find yourself competing with high school kids for a job....somewhere, somehow, you have screwed yourself!

 

[maninthewilderness]

I totally agree.......but people like (maninthewilderness) don't seem to understand this. No manner of economic evidence you give these people will ever convince them that there is some serious income inequality in this country.....

Yes, I agree that there is income inequality in this nation.

AS IT SHOULD BE.

Should the high school drop-out, who mows my mother's lawn, make as much as the guy who worked his way through college waiting tables and later became a registered nurse?

I say "NO".

The drop-out made his own bed, and now he must sleep in it.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Clearly, those adults, who are competing with high school students for a position, have made some very bad life decisions.

In other words:
If you are middle aged and you find yourself competing with high school kids for a job....somewhere, somehow, you have screwed yourself!

Wrong....as usual....

In many cases, as we have seen with the recession, there were/are plenty of adults competing for jobs with high schoolers and those young adults fresh out of college.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/21/business/21age.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Older Workers in U.S. Drive Competition in Labor Market - Bloomberg

Are older workers getting in the way of the young? | Reuters

Teens compete with laid-off adults for summer jobs - USATODAY.com

And it goes on and on......

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Yes, I agree that there is income inequality in this nation.

AS IT SHOULD BE.

Should the high school drop-out, who mows my mother's lawn, make as much as the guy who worked his way through college waiting tables and later became a registered nurse?

I say "NO".

The drop-out made his own bed, and now he must sleep in it.

But you overlook the simple fact that it's not just about the "drop out". Many companies are not issuing raises but are reporting record profits. The income inequality gap has moved further apart. Those in the top percentile have seen almost a 300% increase in income while others have seen their income remain relatively flat....


Yet More Grim Inequality News from the CBO | Mother Jones

 

[maninthewilderness]

Wrong....as usual....

In many cases, as we have seen with the recession, there were/are plenty of adults competing for jobs that high schoolers and those young adults fresh out of college.

Yes, there are plenty of adults competing for jobs against high schoolers.
But that does not prove me wrong.
In fact, it bolsters my argument.

Why are those adults competing with high schoolers?

Because those adults have made some very bad decisions in life.


What adult can say "Hey, I lost my job to a high schooler because I made some awesomely great decisions concerning life and employment"?

 

[maninthewilderness]

But you overlook the simple fact that it's not just about the "drop out". Many companies are not issuing raises but are reporting record profits.

So what?
Do you really think that just because a company shows a profit that they should be forced to give their employees a raise?

And should they take a loss, should they then take money away from their employees?

Some companies have profit sharing as an employee benefit.
Others don't.
It's up to the employee to seek out such positions.
It's not up to the government to force every employer to offer such benefits.

The income inequality gap has moved further apart. Those in the top percentile have seen almost a 300% increase in income while others have seen their income remain relatively flat...

So what?
What's your point?

You don't seem to understand wealth.

It's not a pie, with specific dimensions.

You cannot say "Hey, I would be rich, but Oprah has taken my share of the pie".

In fact, there is no limit to how many "rich" people can exist at any given time.
"Richness" is a bottomless bucket.
You can have one rich person, or a billion rich people.
There is no limit.

Just as you can have one poor person, or a billion poor people.

One does not depend upon the other.

 

[Curious George]

So what?
Do you really think that just because a company shows a profit that they should be forced to give their employees a raise?

And should they take a loss, should they then take money away from their employees?

Some companies have profit sharing as an employee benefit.
Others don't.
It's up to the employee to seek out such positions.
It's not up to the government to force every employer to offer such benefits.



So what?
What's your point?

You don't seem to understand wealth.

It's not a pie, with specific dimensions.

You cannot say "Hey, I would be rich, but Oprah has taken my share of the pie".

In fact, there is no limit to how many "rich" people can exist at any given time.
"Richness" is a bottomless bucket.
You can have one rich person, or a billion rich people.
There is no limit.

Just as you can have one poor person, or a billion poor people.

One does not depend upon the other.

I think his point was plutocracy is bad.

 

[maninthewilderness]

I think his point was plutocracy is bad.

He represented his argument as "capitalism is bad".

 

[Curious George]

He represented his argument as "capitalism is bad".

While it might have seemed like he was pushing some pinko agenda, I do not believe that was his point. But, I might be mistaken.


a side note:
I have a friend who was making about 80k when he was laid off. He immediately went out looking for work. It was not very easy for him. But he did find a job shortly. The consequence is that he forfeited unemployment for a part time job which paid much much lower than his unemployment checks would have been. He had to use up all of his family savings, the family had to sell the house, he and his wife ended up divorced. At one point he was working three barely minimum wage jobs. Two of the jobs were temporary, but during his employment he had no time to look for more work. He is one of the most ambitious guys I know. I certainly do not feel that people can not improve their position, but I do know that it is not as easy as many think. This very friend had, at one point in time prior to this, spoken of how people complain about not being able to find work are really just lazy, that "anyone can work your way up," that if you "work hard you will be rewarded." When he was in the situation, he realized how ignorant some of his prior thoughts were. The concept of the self made man is an illusion. We are a product of environment just as much as our environment is a product of us. His prior employment and wage was certainly a product of his hard work and motivation but it was also a product of circumstance.

While I agree that someone working a minimum wage job or two could and should keep trying to better their situation, I also think that there are circumstances beyond laziness, cognitive disabilities, or addictions that prevent someone from bettering their situation within YOUR one year time limitation. I do not think that it is our place to sit and judge them. I am not disputing that their are lazy people, I am not disputing that their are people with cognitive or physical disabilities; I am not disputing that their are plenty of people who have made poor decisions regarding employment, savings etc. But not all people fit into you categories.

 

[Sunstone]

So what?
What's your point?

You don't seem to understand wealth.

It's not a pie, with specific dimensions.

You cannot say "Hey, I would be rich, but Oprah has taken my share of the pie".

In fact, there is no limit to how many "rich" people can exist at any given time.
"Richness" is a bottomless bucket.
You can have one rich person, or a billion rich people.
There is no limit.

Just as you can have one poor person, or a billion poor people.

One does not depend upon the other.

I don't know if there's much that is genuinely more blind about conservatism in general than the way today's conservatives studiously ignore the political dangers -- the dangers to rights and liberties -- presented by a significant disparity in wealth between the rich and poor. As Plutarch was smart enough to observe 2000 years ago, no republic has ever withstood a great gap between its richest and poorest members. It's not even rocket science -- wealth buys power, and ambitious individuals will use their wealth to that end. Fifty years ago, you would not need to explain it to an Eisenhower conservative, but today's FOX conservatives have only an insipid understanding of this matter, if they possess any understanding of it at all.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't know if there's much that is genuinely more blind about conservatism in general than the way today's conservatives studiously ignore the political dangers -- the dangers to rights and liberties -- presented by a significant disparity in wealth between the rich and poor. As Plutarch was smart enough to observe 2000 years ago, no republic has ever withstood a great gap between its richest and poorest members. It's not even rocket science -- wealth buys power, and ambitious individuals will use their wealth to that end. Fifty years ago, you would not need to explain it to an Eisenhower conservative, but today's FOX conservatives have only an insipid understanding of this matter, if they possess any understanding of it at all.

There's a similar problem with today's leftists, who correctly spot the problem of wealth disparity, but blindly buy into the MSNBC 'solution' of high taxes, rampant regulation, glorifying the slothful, massive welfare state, shackling the productive, & demonizing those who have more. So as you say, things are more complicated than many believe.

 

[Magic Man]

There's a similar problem with today's leftists, who correctly spot the problem of wealth disparity, but blindly buy into the MSNBC 'solution' of high taxes, rampant regulation, glorifying the slothful, massive welfare state, shackling the productive, & demonizing those who have more. So as you say, things are more complicated than many believe.

It would mean more if the things you accuse them of weren't false accusations.

 

[maninthewilderness]

I don't know if there's much that is genuinely more blind about conservatism in general than the way today's conservatives studiously ignore the political dangers -- the dangers to rights and liberties -- presented by a significant disparity in wealth between the rich and poor. As Plutarch was smart enough to observe 2000 years ago, no republic has ever withstood a great gap between its richest and poorest members. It's not even rocket science -- wealth buys power, and ambitious individuals will use their wealth to that end. Fifty years ago, you would not need to explain it to an Eisenhower conservative, but today's FOX conservatives have only an insipid understanding of this matter, if they possess any understanding of it at all.

I agree that we need a strong middle class.
And I believe that the vast majority of both conservatives and liberals also think we need a strong middle class.
It's just that we differ on how to achieve that strong middle class.

Raising the minimum wage is NOT a way to increase the middle class.

It will very likely increase unemployment and under-employment, and/or cause greater wage stagnation among the least skilled workers of this nation.

If Joe the boss has five minimum wage workers, and he is forced to increase their wages to a new higher minimum wage, he will almost certainly fire one of those five workers to offset his losses (increasing unemployment).
Or keep the fifth worker but cut the hours of all five (increasing under-employment).
And all of the workers will almost certainly not receive any raises any time within the foreseeable future, since the boss is now forced to pay those workers more than he believes they merit (increasing wage stagnation).

And since there is now less of a gap between the minimum wage workers and those making above minimum wage, the employees making above minimum wage suffer a perceived pay cut.
Those who were making say $10.00 above minimum wage now suddenly find themselves making say $5.00 above minimum wage.
Which, in the eyes of the more skilled workers, cheapens their value to the company.
After all, how valuable to the company can you be when the unskilled workers make nearly as much as you make?

Increasing the minimum wage does not lead to a bigger middle class.

 

[Sunstone]

There's a similar problem with today's leftists, who correctly spot the problem of wealth disparity, but blindly buy into the MSNBC 'solution' of high taxes, rampant regulation, glorifying the slothful, massive welfare state, shackling the productive, & demonizing those who have more. So as you say, things are more complicated than many believe.

Just like I said, today's FOX conservatives possess an insipid understanding of the problem, if they have any understanding at all. FOX lies are so frickin' predictable.

 

[Magic Man]

I agree that we need a strong middle class.
And I believe that the vast majority of both conservatives and liberals also think we need a strong middle class.
It's just that we differ on how to achieve that strong middle class.

Raising the minimum wage is NOT a way to increase the middle class.

It will very likely increase unemployment and under-employment, and/or cause greater wage stagnation among the least skilled workers of this nation.

If Joe the boss has five minimum wage workers, and he is forced to increase their wages to a new higher minimum wage, he will almost certainly fire one of those five workers to offset his losses (increasing unemployment).
Or keep the fifth worker but cut the hours of all five (increasing under-employment).
And all of the workers will almost certainly not receive any raises any time within the foreseeable future, since the boss is now forced to pay those workers more than he believes they merit (increasing wage stagnation).

And since there is now less of a gap between the minimum wage workers and those making above minimum wage, the employees making above minimum wage suffer a perceived pay cut.
Those who were making say $10.00 above minimum wage now suddenly find themselves making say $5.00 above minimum wage.
Which, in the eyes of the more skilled workers, cheapens their value to the company.
After all, how valuable to the company can you be when the unskilled workers make nearly as much as you make?

Increasing the minimum wage does not lead to a bigger middle class.

You own a store and have 10 people working for minimum wage. You have that number because it's just the right number to meet the sales demands but not have too many employees. Now you have to increase their pay by 20%. Do you a) fire 2 of the employees and then not have enough help to meet demand or b) keep them all and find some way to make up the extra costs (especially if you're a larger company where profits are already at record highs)?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Yes, there are plenty of adults competing for jobs against high schoolers.
But that does not prove me wrong.
In fact, it bolsters my argument.

Why are those adults competing with high schoolers?

Because those adults have made some very bad decisions in life.


What adult can say "Hey, I lost my job to a high schooler because I made some awesomely great decisions concerning life and employment"?

So when you purposely ignore the actual data on this matter it's very difficult to take you serious anymore. I just gave you a slew of articles that tell you exactly why adults and high schoolers are competing for the same jobs.....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

He represented his argument as "capitalism is bad".

Nope. I'm perfectly fine with capitalism. I was just pointing out how wrong you were. I like to at least present some evidence instead of making off the cuff remarks...which it what you've been doing.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It would mean more if the things you accuse them of weren't false accusations.

Thank you. I get so tired explaining to him how weak and incorrect his argument is on this matter.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

While it might have seemed like he was pushing some pinko agenda, I do not believe that was his point. But, I might be mistaken.

You're correct. I wasn't pushing any agenda. I was simply addressing his misconceptions.