Junior Posted July 25, 2014 Share Posted July 25, 2014 It may work in Lincoln. But again you are assuming a single person and not a person with a family, because that is what suits your needs. What happens if you need daycare so you can go work your minimum wage job?? I currently spend $162 a week on daycare. And that is only for 2 days per week! Additionally, Lincoln isn't Chicago, Denver, or Seattle. Edit: Earlier you mention the "government support" for the "single mom with kids scenario", yet you neglect to recognize the irony of the right wing here. These are the EXACT programs that the right wants to cut so that they can lower taxes to mostly benefit the wealthy, whilst maintaining a lower minimum wage, again, to mostly benefit the wealthy. Do you understand the conflicting stance being taken? Then it is your job to demonstrate where and why it won't work, instead of complaining about how Lincoln might just be a particularly good place to be poor. Child care subsides are available in Nebraska for low income families. Your last point is a straw man. I'm arguing against a minimum wage hike, I haven't said in this conversation or anywhere else that I want assistance to the poor gutted. That being said, your logical quandary still works for this conversation. You have implicitly admitted that a minimum wage income is doable for a single person and that a minimum wage income + government benefits is doable for a single person with kids, and yet support a minimum wage hike anyway - why? So really, your argument boils down to: I support hiking the minimum wage by nearly 50% because although it is currently not necessary, it will be after the right wing (no names or proposals given) shreds the safety net. I like how you've deemed a minimum wage hike as factually unnecessary because of your back of the envelope example of one type of household in one city. Do you think living in government housing is as safe in Chicago as it is in Lincoln? My last point is not a straw man. It isn't at all. http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/16/opinion/mcgahey-ryan-budget/ Unlike the current budget deal that was reached last fall, which cuts defense and domestic spending equally, Ryan would increase military spending and provide large tax cuts for millionaires, with deep cuts in non-defense spending footing the bill. But the House cannot cut enough discretionary spending to fund Ryan's budget. So it attacks Obamacare, Medicare and Social Security, with a plan to increase the Medicare eligibility age and turn it into a voucher program. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3923 House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget plan includes cuts in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as the Food Stamp Program) of $135 billion — almost 18 percent — over the next ten years (2014-2023), which would necessitate ending assistance for millions of low-income families, cutting benefits for millions of such households, or some combination of the two. Chairman Ryan proposed similarly deep SNAP cuts in his last two budgets. Link to comment
knapplc Posted July 25, 2014 Share Posted July 25, 2014 Child care subsides are available in Nebraska for low income families. How much should minimum-wage earners rely on external sources like government subsidies or subsidized housing? Link to comment
LukeinNE Posted July 25, 2014 Share Posted July 25, 2014 My last point is not a straw man. It isn't at all. http://www.cnn.com/2...ey-ryan-budget/ Sure it is. I'm not making any points about what ought to happen with the safety net, and yet you feel compelled to set up and knock down arguments I'm not making in order to declare victory. In any case, you're going to have to do better than the opinion of a left wing economist's opinion on CNN and the analysis of a left-wing think tank in DC. Surely you wouldn't let it fly if I started citing the Heritage Foundation and Charles Krauthammer all over the place. Also, Paul Ryan very conveniently unveiled his anti-poverty program yesterday: Ryan wants to beef up the earned-income tax credit for childless workers — a plan many conservatives will not love. And he’d like to create something he calls “opportunity grants” — a pilot initiative that would transfer funding for 11 federal programs back to those states that sign up. Instead of applying to a bunch of different programs, those in need would work with a single case manager on a “customized, personalized” and streamlined plan to move into a job. Work requirements would count time spent in training or looking for employment. Most surprisingly, it would not cut current funding. What a monster. Child care subsides are available in Nebraska for low income families. How much should minimum-wage earners rely on external sources like government subsidies or subsidized housing? Enough to live in good health with a roof over their heads. That's going to vary from place to place. 1 Link to comment
Junior Posted July 25, 2014 Share Posted July 25, 2014 In any case, you're going to have to do better than the opinion of a left wing economist's opinion on CNN and the analysis of a left-wing think tank in DC. Surely you wouldn't let it fly if I started citing the Heritage Foundation and Charles Krauthammer all over the place. Also, Paul Ryan very conveniently unveiled his anti-poverty program yesterday: Ryan wants to beef up the earned-income tax credit for childless workers — a plan many conservatives will not love. And he’d like to create something he calls “opportunity grants” — a pilot initiative that would transfer funding for 11 federal programs back to those states that sign up. Instead of applying to a bunch of different programs, those in need would work with a single case manager on a “customized, personalized” and streamlined plan to move into a job. Work requirements would count time spent in training or looking for employment. Most surprisingly, it would not cut current funding. What a monster. That is definitely a marked shift from his previous stance. But we'll see: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/07/paul_ryan_s_opportunity_grants_the_wisconsin_republican_says_his_poverty.html?wpisrc=burger_bar The three-hole-punched elephant in the room was another lengthy white paper the House Budget chairman wrote: his 2015 budget blueprint, released less than four months ago. That proposal called for $137 billion in cuts over the next decade from the federal food stamp program, now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. A cut of that size—nearly a fifth of SNAP’s current budget—would mean millions of low-income Americans would lose at least some, if not all, of their benefits. Pair Ryan’s budget with his awkward (and arguably racist) entrance into the poverty debate earlier this year, and Democrats have every reason to be skeptical of the House Budget chairman’s newest proposal. “How do you seriously say you care about anti-poverty when you’ve spent the last several years cutting the safety net?” Massachusetts Rep. Jim McGovern said in a conference call with reporters. “Our skepticism comes from the fact that the person who is saying all these nice things has voted in a way that has made life for poor people more difficult.” Link to comment
TAKODA Posted July 25, 2014 Share Posted July 25, 2014 Child care subsides are available in Nebraska for low income families. How much should minimum-wage earners rely on external sources like government subsidies or subsidized housing? This ↑ and if the minimum wage is increased (to whatever value) will this not help people who presently have to depend on subsidies to be more productive and less of a cost factor to our society? Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted July 25, 2014 Share Posted July 25, 2014 Child care subsides are available in Nebraska for low income families. How much should minimum-wage earners rely on external sources like government subsidies or subsidized housing? This ↑ and if the minimum wage is increased (to whatever value) will this not help people who presently have to depend on subsidies to be more productive and less of a cost factor to our society? OK....if you have the minimum wage at $7.50 and on top of that have housing subsidies, how is that necessarily less of a cost factor than raising the minimum wage to the point you don't need the housing subsidies? If someone needs housing subsidies of $200 per month, and to get rid of that, you raise the minimum wage to account for that $200, then isn't it a wash on cost? Link to comment
TAKODA Posted July 25, 2014 Share Posted July 25, 2014 Child care subsides are available in Nebraska for low income families. How much should minimum-wage earners rely on external sources like government subsidies or subsidized housing? This ↑ and if the minimum wage is increased (to whatever value) will this not help people who presently have to depend on subsidies to be more productive and less of a cost factor to our society? OK....if you have the minimum wage at $7.50 and on top of that have housing subsidies, how is that necessarily less of a cost factor than raising the minimum wage to the point you don't need the housing subsidies? If someone needs housing subsidies of $200 per month, and to get rid of that, you raise the minimum wage to account for that $200, then isn't it a wash on cost? I think there is a difference! Earnings vs. handout! I sure as hell can see some people making far less than they deserve by virtue of the jobs they perform. There are some of the jobs they (company's) can't hire any sane person to do, yet, there are those who are doing it because of lack of education, handicap or possibly nothing else available in their field in the geographic area they are tied too, thus they are the low man on the totem pole and are given sh*t for pay. In order for someone to build themselves up to a higher than minimum wage job, they have to have the means to attain it as well as reliable transportation to get to and from. Yep, I know, the bus. Hey boss, I will be a little late today because the bus is running behind. Hey Boss, the bus was early and it left without me but I will get there as soon as I can. I also bet that works great for your (not your's specifically) kids who live a long way from school and are in sporting events. Hey, lets catch the bus and go see Johnny play football this Friday. OK honey, I will check the bus schedule. 1 Link to comment
tschu Posted July 26, 2014 Share Posted July 26, 2014 The more I research income inequality, the more I am sad. My parents had it awesome; grow up in an era when inequality was very low, start working in a good market with low housing costs. Meanwhile my generation inherits the largest inequality since the late 1800s, a total dogshit job market, the 2008 mess, and a political climate that essentially guarantees things will get worse for at least the next 20 years, or the majority of my working lifetime. Things are spectacular. Link to comment
True2tRA Posted July 26, 2014 Share Posted July 26, 2014 Child care subsides are available in Nebraska for low income families. How much should minimum-wage earners rely on external sources like government subsidies or subsidized housing? This ↑ and if the minimum wage is increased (to whatever value) will this not help people who presently have to depend on subsidies to be more productive and less of a cost factor to our society? OK....if you have the minimum wage at $7.50 and on top of that have housing subsidies, how is that necessarily less of a cost factor than raising the minimum wage to the point you don't need the housing subsidies? If someone needs housing subsidies of $200 per month, and to get rid of that, you raise the minimum wage to account for that $200, then isn't it a wash on cost? Your logic is twisted in the fact that the federal government raising minimum wage doesn't mean the government will then be paying their wages. So no, it's not a wash. 1 Link to comment
tschu Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 What the GOP really says comes down to, "I don't want poor people to get a handout, but I don't want them to work their way out of poverty either" 3 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 This seemed like the best place to put this. I'm surprised this hasn't had more of a discussion around it. LINK The most important thing to know about GDP statistics is that counting all economic activity in the country is really hard, so these numbers get revised a lot. Today we not only got an initial estimate of the second quarter of 2014 and a revision of the Q1 estimate, we got the "annual revisions" of the GDP back catalogue. These are important to look at, because they sometimes alter narratives that were established years ago and have lodged in the public mind. The big takeaways from the revisions are this — American households' incomes were somewhat better off in 2011, 2012, and 2013 than we thought. They were also saving more than we thought. Conversely, American corporations were somewhat less profitable than we thought. Link to comment
tschu Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Pretty interesting info about how the recession f'd over the millenials much more than anyone else. Numbers not adjusted, so the 0% under the 26-30 age group is acutally a loss compared with inflation/cost of living rising. http://www.vox.com/2014/9/30/6874195/income-by-age-cohort Link to comment
tschu Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 Absurd http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/9/25/6843509/income-distribution-recoveries-pavlina-tcherneva 2 Link to comment
Junior Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 All together the 400 wealthiest Americans are worth a staggering $2.29 trillion, up $270 billion from a year ago. That’s about the same as the gross domestic product of Brazil, a country of 200 million people. The average net worth of list members is $5.7 billion, $700 million more than last year and a record high. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kerryadolan/2014/09/29/inside-the-2014-forbes-400-facts-and-figures-about-americas-wealthiest/ Link to comment
Recommended Posts