40 Hour Work Week & Poverty

[AndyDufresne]

I'm always amused to see American hypocrites mention their concern about the poor but then adamantly refuse to open the borders to non-whites.

I heard somewhere that a fairly significant number of Europeans are residing and working illegally in the US. The xenophobes don't seem so concerned about that though.

Just wait until they get Ebola.


--Andy

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm always amused to see American hypocrites mention their concern about the poor but then adamantly refuse to open the borders to non-whites.

I heard somewhere that a fairly significant number of Europeans are residing and working illegally in the US. The xenophobes don't seem so concerned about that though.

Righty right. It's a good point, but the common retort is: well, those people already come from rich countries with similar institutions, so they're not going to be competing against the poor Americans nor will they change our way of life by much. (Of course, assuming the immigrant isn't poor/'unskilled'/meets a vague criteria of what poor means, and is 'one of us').

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm always amused to see American hypocrites mention their concern about the poor but then adamantly refuse to open the borders to non-whites.

I heard somewhere that a fairly significant number of Europeans are residing and working illegally in the US. The xenophobes don't seem so concerned about that though.

Just wait until they get Ebola.


--Andy

Should people who have contracted Ebola be allowed to marry? Don't answer that because they are allowed to marry. This is just another consequence of letting the gays marry. Mark my words.

Also, you have a predilection for all things yellow due to your banana craze. Racist.

[mrswdk]

I'm always amused to see American hypocrites mention their concern about the poor but then adamantly refuse to open the borders to non-whites.

I heard somewhere that a fairly significant number of Europeans are residing and working illegally in the US. The xenophobes don't seem so concerned about that though.

Righty right. It's a good point, but the common retort is: well, those people already come from rich countries with similar institutions, so they're not going to be competing against the poor Americans nor will they change our way of life by much. (Of course, assuming the immigrant isn't poor/'unskilled'/meets a vague criteria of what poor means, and is 'one of us').

If immigrants from developing countries are mostly relatively poor and thus extra competition for America's poor to deal with then does that not mean someone who professes to care about the poor while also advocating closed* borders is actually being intellectually consistent?

*to the foreign poor

[Metsfanmax]

I'm always amused to see American hypocrites mention their concern about the poor but then adamantly refuse to open the borders to non-whites.

I heard somewhere that a fairly significant number of Europeans are residing and working illegally in the US. The xenophobes don't seem so concerned about that though.

Righty right. It's a good point, but the common retort is: well, those people already come from rich countries with similar institutions, so they're not going to be competing against the poor Americans nor will they change our way of life by much. (Of course, assuming the immigrant isn't poor/'unskilled'/meets a vague criteria of what poor means, and is 'one of us').

If immigrants from developing countries are mostly relatively poor and thus extra competition for America's poor to deal with then does that not mean someone who professes to care about the poor while also advocating closed* borders is actually being intellectually consistent?

*to the foreign poor

No. People, even poor people, are not a one-way economic street: they don't just create demand for jobs for themselves, they also create demand for many other products and services. Those additional products and services require more inputs to produce, so ultimately employers will need more employees.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Ever notice?

Many of the people promoting this message are spending $200-300-400-500 per month on cigarettes, and/or $100-200/month on pot, perhaps $100-300 dollars on cocaine, meth, prescription pills, possibly combined with/separately $100 on gas driving to a casino back n forth and probably dropping another $100-300 on average more into games tilted against them winning? Perhaps $50-100 a month on lottery tickets? Many of them go to restaurants at least once a day if not twice, and many of them don't even attempt to stretch the little money they have left by shopping smarter? Perhaps much more at strip club or throwing money at women who don't even like them?

The key is also to look at what people do with their money and understand that monetary irresponsibility/waste is just as much a factor if not more so than what the wage is. I constantly see people with little money in line ahead of me at the convenience store buying 2 packs of cigarettes and 5 lottery tickets. Less frequently but often enough I see people in line ahead of me at the grocery store paying for their steaks and 24 packs of soda and numerous bags of potato chips with food stamps/ebt. I notice a friend of mine who is easily considered to be in 'poverty' buys her kids each their own xbox 360 as well as each a playstation 4 'so they don't fight' and goes to the casino every single weekend for years, goes on cruise ships in the Bahamas every April when she gets that earned income credit 'to help her kids'...ever notice some people in poverty not only choose poverty, but focus much effort to stay in 'poverty' by making sure they don't work over a certain amount of hours'?

I do. I notice it all the time!

I'm not trying to say poverty isn't real and that people don't ever need help, but I am saying these BS zombie repeat lines all too often and perhaps intentionally so avoid looking at the other side of the equation when it comes to why people are in poverty, besides wages. And the other side is personal responsibility/irresponsibility ie what people DO with their money. The zombie repeaters will go on and on about what the oppressive corporation does with their money, or what the investor does with their money, but will stop you dead in your tracks if you dare to question what an impoverished person does with their money.

What do you mean I don't pay my bills!? Why do you think I'm broke?

-TG

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm always amused to see American hypocrites mention their concern about the poor but then adamantly refuse to open the borders to non-whites.

I heard somewhere that a fairly significant number of Europeans are residing and working illegally in the US. The xenophobes don't seem so concerned about that though.

Righty right. It's a good point, but the common retort is: well, those people already come from rich countries with similar institutions, so they're not going to be competing against the poor Americans nor will they change our way of life by much. (Of course, assuming the immigrant isn't poor/'unskilled'/meets a vague criteria of what poor means, and is 'one of us').

If immigrants from developing countries are mostly relatively poor and thus extra competition for America's poor to deal with then does that not mean someone who professes to care about the poor while also advocating closed* borders is actually being intellectually consistent?

*to the foreign poor

Picture this. Tell them to go before a poor person in some poor country. They must say, "I'm sorry. I know you're poor, your government treats you like shit, and you and your relatives suffer from disease, famine, and whatever, but we can't let you in because relatively poor people in the US might have to compete harder."

They won't say that because they refuse to be intellectual consistent. For example:

Ask them if they favor foreign aid, and they'll tend to say, "yes, because I want to help poor people abroad." Mention failures, and they'll discount them. Mention systemic issues, and they'll reject them. It doesn't matter. What matters are intentions.

The problem is that you're thinking they're being intellectual here. They're not. They frame it as a political issue, so look for their sentiment getting in the way. Mention "sweatshops," and they'll hate on them--not because they provide better wages than subsistence farming but because sweatshops are 'icky', exploitative, blah blah blah (never mind alternatives that real people face).

We're talking about a huge group of people whose conception of the state is on par with a belief in unicorns.

[mrswdk]

I'm always amused to see American hypocrites mention their concern about the poor but then adamantly refuse to open the borders to non-whites.

I heard somewhere that a fairly significant number of Europeans are residing and working illegally in the US. The xenophobes don't seem so concerned about that though.

Righty right. It's a good point, but the common retort is: well, those people already come from rich countries with similar institutions, so they're not going to be competing against the poor Americans nor will they change our way of life by much. (Of course, assuming the immigrant isn't poor/'unskilled'/meets a vague criteria of what poor means, and is 'one of us').

If immigrants from developing countries are mostly relatively poor and thus extra competition for America's poor to deal with then does that not mean someone who professes to care about the poor while also advocating closed* borders is actually being intellectually consistent?

*to the foreign poor

No. People, even poor people, are not a one-way economic street: they don't just create demand for jobs for themselves, they also create demand for many other products and services. Those additional products and services require more inputs to produce, so ultimately employers will need more employees.

And they will create so much demand that they will generate jobs for both themselves and the unemployed people who already lived in that economy? Exponential immigration = 0 unemployment?

[mrswdk]

I'm always amused to see American hypocrites mention their concern about the poor but then adamantly refuse to open the borders to non-whites.

I heard somewhere that a fairly significant number of Europeans are residing and working illegally in the US. The xenophobes don't seem so concerned about that though.

Righty right. It's a good point, but the common retort is: well, those people already come from rich countries with similar institutions, so they're not going to be competing against the poor Americans nor will they change our way of life by much. (Of course, assuming the immigrant isn't poor/'unskilled'/meets a vague criteria of what poor means, and is 'one of us').

If immigrants from developing countries are mostly relatively poor and thus extra competition for America's poor to deal with then does that not mean someone who professes to care about the poor while also advocating closed* borders is actually being intellectually consistent?

*to the foreign poor

Picture this. Tell them to go before a poor person in some poor country. They must say, "I'm sorry. I know you're poor, your government treats you like shit, and you and your relatives suffer from disease, famine, and whatever, but we can't let you in because relatively poor people in the US might have to compete harder."

They won't say that because they refuse to be intellectual consistent. For example:

Ask them if they favor foreign aid, and they'll tend to say, "yes, because I want to help poor people abroad." Mention failures, and they'll discount them. Mention systemic issues, and they'll reject them. It doesn't matter. What matters are intentions.

The problem is that you're thinking they're being intellectual here. They're not. They frame it as a political issue, so look for their sentiment getting in the way. Mention "sweatshops," and they'll hate on them--not because they provide better wages than subsistence farming but because sweatshops are 'icky', exploitative, blah blah blah (never mind alternatives that real people face).

We're talking about a huge group of people whose conception of the state is on par with a belief in unicorns.

Ah. I was assuming that when you said 'the poor' you were only talking about the domestic poor.

Assuming that the US (for example) could sustainably offer a better life for these poor migrants then yeah, sealing the borders while claiming to want to heal the world is a bit fatuous. But then as you say, these people aren't exactly engaging all their critical faculties in the first place anyway.

[Phatscotty]

lmao, heck no! Perhaps tired, might have been like 4am or something. Well. let's start with my premise.

#1 Do you believe the only significant factor deciding poverty is what the minimum wage is?

Of course it isnt, I dont feel like this is your point.

#2 I got these numbers from people I know in my life, most of whom have always been in poverty, most of who have been living a life of receiving free benefits, even while working but not reporting the income. He gets all this help, and then he blows it on drugs, hookers, cigs, liquor. I know for sure because when he gets desperate he offers to buy me 30$ on his food card for 20$ cash. So, it's not made up. And he finally qualified for social security about 6 months ago so he came into a lot of money on a monthly basis. Guess what, I haven't talked to him or seen him for 6 months, and I guarantee that's because he's doing more drugs now than he ever has in his life, and I even wonder if he's still alive or not. I'm saying it's very real that getting the social security money may be what did him in. The one about the girl who goes to the casino every weekend, goes on a cruise in the Bahamas every March, closes down bars once a week, bought each of her kids their own Playstation 4 so they don't fight, she complains about her 'poverty' more than anyone. She was even featured in our local newspaper with a photograph at the food shelf. My friends and I read her tragic sob story and our mouths were on the floor. Of course, it didn't mention anything about the PS4's, the cruises, the casinos. Anyone who didn't know her and read that would be all 'Poor girl, I want to help her!' And this girl is an expert, she also gets energy aid, doesn't pay her bill during winter and gets it forgiven/passed on to others in the spring, she bilks her military 'boyfriend' for usually $1,000 s pop, she smokes 2 packs if cigs a day, we suspect she has a prescription drug habit there is more I'm leaving out. But the bottom line is she pays close attention to not make more than like $1,100 per month because if she does she loses her 'free shit' I don't entirely blame people, offer them all this easy shit that nobody will ever question, of course most humans are gonna take the easy money when given the option. So she leaves early every day from work, sometimes does not even go in on Friday's, she gets 3 days weekends sometimes twice a month. So you see, none of it is ignorance, not one ounce. It's all true, and I suspect there are plenty more people just like her all over the place. I'm not sure what the study says, and I don't expect people to be entirely honest and admit their mistakes in those kinds of studies either, as that also is not really a human trait. The trait is to blame someone or something for their problems, rightly or wrongly. But the point is this girl exists regardless of the studies. Um, I don't think it's great being poor, but I can say easily this 'poor' girl lives 3 times the life I do, and I work 8am-11pm Monday thru Friday. I have never been on a cruise. The last system I bought was a nintendo 64. I would love to have a PS4. It would be great to get food stamps and I could save $170 more/month than I already do while forcing other working Americans to pick up that tab for me, but it's wrong, so I don't do it and I wouldn't qualify if I tried. I think you are the one assuming a lot of things, I only talk about what I know to be true, yet many walk away think that somehow means because I know this girl that means 100% of people on welfare go on cruises. I don't know where that comes from, but clearly I was not speaking about anyone other than the people that I spoke of, with the exception to assume they are not the only person in the country doing this and that there are others. And it doesn't matter if it's 1% of poor people or 10% or 50%, it's wrong, and it pisses me off. I don't blame my friends entirely, but why the hell does the option exist in the first place? Why is it so easy for this to happen? I am concluding because of the programmed response people give on the subject, and that is 'I have compassion, so throw more money at it and let's move on to the next thing' I have compassion too, but funding a system so easily ripe for abuse which does in fact help enable many people to continue drug and gambling habits and other things that aren't helping them at all, it's actually hurting them, and that is also enabled by the fact that when you work very hard for your money it's hard to blow that money on something like drugs or a hand of poker. When you get the money for free you aren't going to value that money nearly as close as if you worked 2 full days for it. The expression is ;easy come, easy go'

Well, I do know that most people who smoke are poor, and if they smoke a pack a day (in my state) that's roughly 280$/month, and I would opine there is a good chance that is contributing to keeping them poor, no matter what we do to try to help. Let's apply cigarette smoking to the issue here and let's get to the point about it. A poor person smoking a pack of cigs a day that costs them $280 a month, we are giving them aid of say $170/month for food, but really we are just helping them to get lung cancer. I know this because it's easy to state that if the food aid was not available for this particular smoker, and they had to make the choice between cigs and food, I highly doubt a single person is going to choose to starve so they can smoke cigs. Rather than enabling them to smoke, we would be helping them a lot more and they would be helping themselves if they didn't have such an easy option to constantly bail them out with no questions asked. Call it tough love if you like, but in those circumstances I feel giving them a reality check would be helping them x100

Honestly, phats, I feel like anyone working 40 hours per week should be living decently as long as they make intelligent life decisions (ie: dont smoke "a pack a day" like you say). We dont have any sort of "meal card" or whatever up in Canada to my knowledge (or maybe we do but I dont think so), so I dont know how it works and I think that they should either have a law that says you cannot buy other people (outside your family) food with it OR just not have it whatsoever.

Well, I'll try to level with ya here. Basically my response is the only one's whom a wage is going to dictate whether or not they live a 'decent' life are those who have 'decent' skills and can demand a 'decent' wage, and then what they do with their money. If they truly do make intelligent decisions, then they are not likely to remain at minimum wage for very long, and if they truly do make stupid decisions or give into every little impulse or feel like they deserve to go out every weekend no matter how much they can't afford it, If they go into debt to gamble or even because they want better tasting food for lunch instead of boring sandwiches but end up short on money 3 days before payday, it won't really matter if they have a decent wage; they still likely will not lead a decent life. However, the 'minimum' wage in America is most likely going to get you a 'minimum' life-style. but that's why, as the first line of the OP states, it's not just about what the wage is. I'm not sure it will ever be recognized that a minimum wage earner can truly live a 'decent' lifestyle based on wage alone. There is another side of the coin that depends just as much on the person and their character and their values and there outlook on life and what they do/don't do with their money. And just raising the minimum wage alone will not get them out of poverty since prices will rise as more money is chasing the same amount of goods not to mention many minimum wage low/no skill jobs will simply be replaced by machines, as McDonalds is already doing, resulting in zero dollars and zero job for the person who used to get paid 7$ and have a job.

Now I'll give you a taste of both sides in America, the results of minimum wage earners, some who try to do the right thing, some who laugh about how easy it is to do the wrong thing. As well as waste in the system, how many people use poverty as a crutch to get free shit and think it's a big joke and the taxpayers are stupid suckers, as well as the attitudes that purvey them. Just forget about generalizing all people this way or that, I hardly ever generalize and when I do I say as much, but this is not one of them. So here are a couple of examples of good and bad. Obviously I am going to hold up the good and shine a light on the bad. Try to keep in mind 'attitude' and recognize that is also a factor as far as who is in poverty and who isn't. Another aspect is valuing money. People who do not earn their own money aren't going to be able to value it the sameway a hard working person values it. It's not a knock there, it's just true the person who did not enter, clean, and exit garbage dumpsters for 8 hours on a 110 degree summer day while focusing on doing it correctly as well as efficiently and in a timely manner for 120$ is not going to value that money the same way the person who worked for it does.




I know that a minimum wage earner who does everything in their power to save and spend smartly and go without things that are not truly a necessity, over a bit of time, are likely to build a 'decent' living for themselves. I have seen this many times with the extremely hard working Hispanics with excellent work ethics I have known over the last decade. Despite earning minimum wage the entire time AND not having a car, many are living a decent life while still earning minimum wage. Of course there are sacrifices and tough times. Many of them shared a 1 bedroom apartment with anywhere from 4-9 other people. Sounds cray cray, but really most of them were working all the time so it was doable. Many saved their money and took their destiny into their own hands and held themselves accountable, rather than going out to the bar or buying a bottle of liquor and getting shit drunk every night and barely even able to survive the next day of work, hardly even able to do the minimum required to earn that minimum wage and still blame everyone else for their problems. The one's who were smart packed lunches everyday, eating the same boring thing day after day, switching sandwich meat only once every 10 days, others threw their money out the window paying over-the-top dollar for shit food at convenience stores. The few I have mentioned earlier in this thread, despite still earning minimum wage, now own a house, with the one buddy I still maintain already 5 years into a 10 year mortgage at low rates and with a low payment. He still doesn't have his driver's license, but he chose to live as close to possible to his workplace despite how he may have felt or where he might have wanted to live, and he never tried to drive unlicensed and without insurance or break the law; and when he and his brother and another illegal immigrant got pulled over one night, this guy was let go most likely because of his clean record and showing respect, the other guy who made it a point to never learn English and most likely was a racist and had no respect for opportunity and blames everyone else for his problems got deported. Now my buddy has a kid on the way and is getting married. I admire him greatly and I think I have had a small impact on his life (no this is not the one that took some other advise end exited poverty as referred to on an earlier page) we still hang out a few times a year and going to the state fair together has kind of been our thing and hopefully we can still hang out now that 'familia' is gonna be a priority for him, but the main point is he has earned minimum wage for about 10 years now, and he did all this mostly by himself. That is the American Dream, it's right here, it's wherever anyone wants it to be. He is living a decent life on minimum wage because he make smart decisions with his money, kept his nose clean with the law and did not give into impulses probably because he has experience with religion and the kind discipline religion promotes. I know this isn't all minimum wage earners and everyone has different things going on, but I also know for a fact one can still achieve the American Dream on minimum wage. It just so happens that it's not easy and the Dream does not normally come to those with 'I don't feel like it right now' attitudes and those who have a chip on their shoulder it's other people's fault.

[Phatscotty]

What a strange and disturbing comment.

My wife and I have this "personal spending" discussion a lot (caveat - we're not talking about impoverished people here, so relax*). We have some friends who constantly complain about money and yet they purchase things that are beyond their means. If a person or family has the gall to complain about funds while driving a $50,000 car, that is problematic.

* There are many factors that contribute to poverty one of which is probably the ability for a person or family to budget correctly.

I'm always amused to see American hypocrites mention their concern about the poor but then adamantly refuse to open the borders to non-whites.

I heard somewhere that a fairly significant number of Europeans are residing and working illegally in the US. The xenophobes don't seem so concerned about that though.

Perhaps it's you who assumes that people talking about illegals are only talking about non-whites, or maybe you are correct just going by what BBS says, and it is BBS who automatically links the poor to being poor because they aren't white?

I wonder what that number is of illegal European immigrants, even if to just understand what makes up 'fairly significant'. Since you have not heard people point out the color of skin (cept BBS) when ranting about how America has a rule of law and preffers order over chaos, I'll chime in my 2 cents that it doesn't matter what color skin the illegal alien is when we are talking about breaking the laws of our country or why borders matter.

Interestingly I just made a long post about an illegal alien I know who is no longer living poorly despite having earned minimum wage for the last 10 years while sometime only getting 26 hours of work/week yet is realizing the American Dream. I did point out he is Hispanic, and just to keep with BBS standards, his skin color is cinnamon.

anyways, concerning the topic about hours worked at minimum wage, my friend sometimes yes did work 50 hours/week, and sometimes worked a second job, but that didn't really last and he only did it because Christmas was coming up.

[PLAYER57832]

I'm always amused to see American hypocrites mention their concern about the poor but then adamantly refuse to open the borders to non-whites.

I heard somewhere that a fairly significant number of Europeans are residing and working illegally in the US. The xenophobes don't seem so concerned about that though.

Righty right. It's a good point, but the common retort is: well, those people already come from rich countries with similar institutions, so they're not going to be competing against the poor Americans nor will they change our way of life by much. (Of course, assuming the immigrant isn't poor/'unskilled'/meets a vague criteria of what poor means, and is 'one of us').

There are some, but the numbers are significantly lower than from South America. Also, they are more likely to "blend", culturally. What gets the ire of a lot of folks out west is the number of illegal Mexicans (specifically, other south Americans tend to be less vocal) who come here illegally and then turn around to demand that we speak their language, cater to their culture.

It gets complicated because there is also a large contingent of fully legal individuals who are vocal, but the stereotype (and one I have personally encountered repeatedly) is those who come here illegally and then make demands as soon as they attain legal status, sometimes even before.

On the other side is the FACT that so many businesses hire these people precisely because they are willing to work for so much less than citizens. This also fuels anger because it effectively lowers the minimum wage. I saw groups of men living in squalid trailers. Often they were sending money back to support families, but sometimes they just were not getting paid enough to get anything better. (note.. my experience is largely, but not solely in agriculture out west). It used to be primarily agriculture, but now illegals and recently legalized (that is, those who were illegal but who became legal -- not talking about regular immigration, which is severely limited from Mexico and other south American countries). are in several major industries -- fast foods, construction, janitorial services, etc.

These people mostly DO pay taxes, but because they work for lower wages, its not as much as if someone else had the job. Also, they don't have the money to spend on the local economy.

The biggest issue in many cases is not so much the legal status of the worker, per se, but that the illegality allows an employer to hire someone under essentially abusive conditions, instead of offering something better to a citizen. THAT hurts us all!

There have been plenty of threads on the illegality issue, but I will say that the answer is not to put immigrants in jail. Employers, not employees need to face the penalties, BUT... folks also need to be more creative in how to meet needs without necessarily encuring greater expenses.

In many cases, it makes sense for employers to offer housing. On farms, in particular, a vegetable garden can offer a HUGE benefit without much cost to the employer. Old-style "company" towns and housing have a bad name, for good reason. Still... it might be time to consider something of the sort in higher income areas, providing it is carefully controlled so as not to become abusive, slum, housing.

[Phatscotty]

I totally agree here with Player initial assessment. I also believe we should not put them in jail, not for the crime of breaking the laws that apply to our border, and I never have thought they should go to jail. And would only point out a taxpayer working at the bottom rung basically gets all/most income taxes paid returned when they file.

Yet, why should employers be punished, as they are just following the laws to the T and fitting perfectly through the loopholes created by the very same people you opine should punish/penalize them? Lawmakers who take money from Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Michael Bloomburg and are therefore 'financially persuaded' to keep wages low so that fatcats can get fatter. The reality that certain employers have workers lined up just waiting to work for minimum wage who yes will likely put up with a lot of shit even abuse is what makes the for the outcome that there is no reason for the employer to raise wages, in fact there is every reason to lower wages as the supply of unskilled labor is virtually unlimited. The savings of the employer are not usually dispersed to other employees and almost always find their way directly into the employers pockets. It's one of many market related and non-market related reasons why real wages compared to inflation have remained virtually stagnant over the last 30 years. Culture plays a role as well, and so does ease of our safety nets. Even the New York Times sites the spike in Social Security Disability in recent decades as a contributing reason. I easily admit ceo's and company owners make exorbitant amounts of money and many times it easy to argue the workers truly made those profits and the owners/managers did not, and I wish the corporations would simply take less of a profit margin and transfer it straight to employees, but of course I am not for forcing it. It should be a voluntary thing and I would be all for people encouraging it naturally and organically, for the right reasons while I'm sure the exponentially growing government is more than happy to sit back and do nothing until enough people demand the government take over the issue and flip the switch to automatically make it right. I could go on and on, but there is no doubt that an increase in low/no skilled workers with the same amount of jobs put no pressure whatsoever on wages increasing and in fact is a recipe for keeping wages low and even decreasing wages.

However, concerning the minimum wage, wasn't it like 2 dollars something in the 70's? Well, the minimum wage has more than tripled since then, right? So why aren't minimum wagers 3 times richer now? That's why I'm saying raising the minimum wage won't solve the problem, and is just papering it over.

[PLAYER57832]

Sorry this response is so long in coming, but when I had time to post a lot, I was watching kids in my home and fending off phone calls from insurance companies and billers, spending a lot of time on hold. Now, I just don't have the time.

Ever notice?

Many of the people promoting this message are spending $200-300-400-500 per month on cigarettes, and/or $100-200/month on pot, perhaps $100-300 dollars on cocaine, meth, prescription pills, possibly combined with/separately $100 on gas driving to a casino back n forth and probably dropping another $100-300 on average more into games tilted against them winning? Perhaps $50-100 a month on lottery tickets? Many of them go to restaurants at least once a day if not twice, and many of them don't even attempt to stretch the little money they have left by shopping smarter? Perhaps much more at strip club or throwing money at women who don't even like them?

The key is also to look at what people do with their money and understand that monetary irresponsibility/waste is just as much a factor if not more so than what the wage is. I constantly see people with little money in line ahead of me at the convenience store buying 2 packs of cigarettes and 5 lottery tickets. Less frequently but often enough I see people in line ahead of me at the grocery store paying for their steaks and 24 packs of soda and numerous bags of potato chips with food stamps/ebt. I notice a friend of mine who is easily considered to be in 'poverty' buys her kids each their own xbox 360 as well as each a playstation 4 'so they don't fight' and goes to the casino every single weekend for years, goes on cruise ships in the Bahamas every April when she gets that earned income credit 'to help her kids'...ever notice some people in poverty not only choose poverty, but focus much effort to stay in 'poverty' by making sure they don't work over a certain amount of hours'?

I do. I notice it all the time!

I'm not trying to say poverty isn't real and that people don't ever need help, but I am saying these BS zombie repeat lines all too often and perhaps intentionally so avoid looking at the other side of the equation when it comes to why people are in poverty, besides wages. And the other side is personal responsibility/irresponsibility ie what people DO with their money. The zombie repeaters will go on and on about what the oppressive corporation does with their money, or what the investor does with their money, but will stop you dead in your tracks if you dare to question what an impoverished person does with their money.

Total bull.. and if you were REALLY watching, you would know it.

I won't even go with the minimum... take $8.00 an hour. You lose 20% right off the top for deductions (actually they say to use 25%, but I am underestimating on purpose). That leaves $6.00 an hour, $240 a week, $840 a month for EVERYTHING. If you get EMPLOYER-PROVIDED insurance, figure on a minimum of $95 a month, $170 or so for a family (note those are MINIMUMS). With the Affordable care act, that gets better... most of those people are now eligible for subsidies. Also, anyone with kids who have even minor disabilities has always gotten free Medicaid (but NOT for healthy kids or adults!)

Welcome Player, I have been expecting you j/k I will be looking for you to point out somewhere as I go here what is total bull and why. We'll see

Beautiful opening, with you all the way. However, what about the idea perhaps someone who earns 8$ an hour should actually earn 8$ an hour?? radical, I know, but perhaps the reason nobody talks about why a wage just can't cover anything anymore is because nobody actually gets what they earn, you have to chop 25% of the wage right off the top that you will never see in your check.

Yeah.. typical of you. EXCEPT-- who do you expect to pay for roads, the military, protection of the environment (oops..f orgot to whom I was speaking , you think we live in spacships, not a world with living organisms that actually need attention), schools (oops again, you think every parent ought to pay for their own kids or rely upon utterly voluntary donations from wealthy individuals -- never mind that this mean those wealthy individuals and not parents get to decide what is proper education, get to use their money to bully their ideas onto the rest of us!)

In fact I think everyone should stop calling their wage what is it pre-taxation, reduce 25% off your wage, and tell yourself that's how much you make. If we just go with what's easiest, and raise the wage to 15, that means you are losing even more $/hour as you only REALLY earn 10.75/hour. I know it's still statistically the same, but I do not want to give the government that was getting 2$.hour from the worker to now get 4.25$? Why does the government get more than 100% increase? And not to mention the conflict of interest in the government giving itself a raise, all for the poor, right? And another thing, someone who makes that little in earnings is going to get almost all if not more of that money back at the end of the year as you are easily in the bottom 47% of Americans that basically do not pay any significant income taxes. And about all the wonders of free shit/insurance, I just don't see it that way. Somebody else is paying for it, working for it, and also paying their own premium that is almost just as big a pickle for them as it is the lowest wage earners and with no subsidy. That does not sound like a fix, that sounds like transferring Peter's problems onto Paul's back, and Paul is already carrying a full load in the recession.

I see, so YOUR solution is to just cut taxes entirely. I covered the big points above, for the rest... its in other threads. THIS is about the minimum wage.
BUT... I notice you neatly avoid one issue that I have brought up before. Any company or person who hires someone for fulltime, OR who hires multiple part-timers as a way to avoid paying benefits is forcing their employees to rely upon others for those services... it may be family, but more often it is other tax payers. SO... the "big savings" is largely a bogus accounting, filling the pockets of a few at the expense of a large number of hard workers.

Notice an ironic concurrence there? See BOTH of us are actually talking about reducing the tax burden, its just I talk about reducing the NEED, and you talk about just cutting off payments as if some magic genie will then fill all the needs.

Food... figure about $80 for a single, if you really push it, but up that to $150-200 for a family of 4. Clothing... garage sales still mean about $120 a year, and that is IF you are lucky enough to get shoes. If you have to buy shoes, figure a MINIMUM of $40 each. (you might luck out and get a bargain, I often find shoes for my youngest at Ross's for $30, but my older guy is now a size 12... and I am lucky to get anything that will last for less than $60). Realistically, its hard to by on less than $20 a month for clothes, unless you are getting free stuff from someone. (either hand me downs or gifts). Many low wage workers have to buy uniforms. My shirts run me $30 each. (I got 2 when I first started, but I have to buy new ones now that they are changing the type -- yep, right at CHRISTMAS time!)

Here is exactly where I have no problem with my tax dollars helping others with some aid. I will challenge the hell out of your shoes prices tho, as I just bought a pair of work boots for chopping and stacking wood for 6$ at the thrift store. oh i see, IF you can find them, well, still, at my old job during the summer when we traveled a lot and did warehouse stuff, i bought the wal-mart tennis shoes, I think they were 10$? either way no biggie let's continue. Again, with all these valid issues you have here, I can't help but think 'if only the 8$ earner actually got 8$'....

I see, so that you were LUCKY ENOUGH to find a SINGLE pair of boots for $6 -- that disputes my statement that unless you are lucky enough you have to pay full retail. ALSO.. note a couple of facts, you likely have an "easy to fit" size. Both I and my kids have unusually wide feet. Cutting cost on shoes, particularly for kids, is not really cost-effective. You wind up paying in medical bills rather quickly if you don't take proper care of your feet.

AND... there is a BIG difference between getting a pair of boots for "chopping and stacking wood" and getting a pair that you will use day in , day out. I DO, for example, buy the cheapest high heels I can find. I only wear them to church and my husband's award dinners. (long since stopped doing anything for myself). I can deal with hurting/pinched feet for a few hours, a few days a month. When I was working in an office, I would bring tennis shoes and then change into heels... even so, I tried to find decent and low heels. (and yes, that is very much one reason why I am now not employed in those places.. I did not "fit" the "profile" well enough )

Total so far, for a single -- $220, for a family, up that to $420 or so with a family.

now, the biggie.... See, that leaves just 420 for rent for a single person and only 220 for a family.

Note several missing items? Water, electricity, etc...... I ALSO omitted gasoline/transportation (in metropolitan areas, you can walk or bike, but our area doesn't even have bike lanes --- and forget bikes in the winter, just not safe, though in Europe I rode all the time). Toys/educational stuff for kids.

Geez, you are starting to sound like me! I somewhere made this exact same post, but as I was on salary at around $170/day at the time, needless to say I was way above 8$, and it still didn't add up, even with my frugality. Then again, when I look at how much money was taken from me on a monthly basis, I couldn't help but wonder why I was renting paying money to another person rather than getting a mortgage/paying myself/building equity. Hey, there's a great way to build up your monetary wealth and hopefully move out of poverty! I guess things just don't work like that anymore.

Yeah, I "sound like you" if you don't bother to READ!
Frist, I clearly stated that I am paying a mortgage -- a mortgage that I acquired before I was married, before I had kids. If I had not had to refinance to pay for car and medical expenses, I would have it paid off by now.

BUT.. two points.
#1 houses in may areas are no longer the guaranteed investment that they used to be... (seems like you were one of those most complaining about irresponsible banks loaning to people who really could not afford their homes --BASIC homes??? ).

#2. UNLESS you are fully able to support yourself, (and note, WE ARE, its just very, very tough and our basic standard of living is below that of many people who get assistance!) you are not ALLOWED to own anything. A few food banks cater to the truly short-term needs. One year, I did qualify for present for my kids from one of the "Santa" programs. (the ONLY aid, other than medical care and WIC,that I have EVER gotten) Even then, if the lady had looked at yearly income instead of monthly, we would not have qualified, but she was willing to bend a bit because I was not really asking (She asked me... basically just asking if I would take the gifts, were we to qualify.. I said "yes", because it was for my kids) and because I had always given a lot myself, in the past and then after). We hit a bad stretch because my husband was laid off shortly after my son incurred $5000 in medical bills that had to be paid within 3 months. He got a job that did offer insurance.

Cable is often included with apartment rent, but you pretty much have to pay for internet. Only some areas offer subsidies for low income people. If you have kids OR are just looking for work, internet connection

IN other words, why don't you actually THINK before you sound off again!

uh, what? As if all these bills and expenses are not the same bills and expenses I have? Why don't you think to add in food stamps for this family, okay, do that, problem solves hopefully with a little to save. Sounds like some other kinds of aid both public and private are called for in your scenario and likely to be received. No problems from me here. Done thinking

UH.. NO.

Frist of all, we, like many people never qualified for aid. Our income was consistently about $50 above the poverty level.

AND.. just how does this jive with your above idea of "no taxes" .

When you start arguing about how people should depend on other people INSTEAD of wages... I find that disgusting. The POINT is that people should be getting enough to support themselves from WAGES, not because their neighbors help out.

I was quite happy to take gifts that one Christmas. It did hurt, but I focused on the grace and goodness of the people offering the aid and thanked God that kids were not really and truly bad off at all. See.. I know full well that as tough as things are for us, they are far, far, FAR worse for many other people in this country (never mind elsewhere... that is an entirely different issue). And THAT is my other point. I am NOT saying "feel sorry for me", not at all! I am saying to look at what is really happening,instead of just picking out a few convenient statistics that don't tell anything like the full truth.

AND... I am saying, above all, to stop this hypocritic nonsense of complaining about your taxes.. and then justifying every cut to social service at the same time you make claims that wages are "just find". Taken separately, each point is somewhat valid (too much taxes, abuse, aid available). BUT.. the way you try to put them together at the same time is disgusting.

We need more WAGES, NOT FOOD STAMPS!

OH, yeah... neither I nor my husband are anything close to minimum wage workers. I make over $8.00 an hour. Minimum is $7.35.

The TRUTH is that for every person who abuses the system.. and note, abuse happens at ALL levels of the economic ladder, ironically enough the IMPACT to the rest of us is far less at the lower ends than the higher ends. I mean, sure, its obnoxious to see someone in the food pantry line who smells of smoke, but when a CEO takes tax breaks for years, then decides to just move a company overseas because he can boost his stock profits by a few dollars.. that impacts ALL of us. When Walmart goes out of its way to undersell all competitors specifically to drive them out of business, meaning a lower tax base (Walmart, many of these larger retailers often arranges deal with communities to not pay various taxes) and lower general incomes (even if wages are about the same, far more of local retail money stays in place.. Walmart money goes to feed its corporation and stockholders)

AND.. let's forget the "single mom" sob story, though I know I am going to get a lot of flack for that. I DO understand what it is to raise a kid alone. It IS tough, but here is the irony... most aid is based on very strict income limits that are very low. Essentially, if you are married and both parties are working, its impossible to get most aid. My single neighbors got aid for food, toys for Christmas, clothing for their kids and free childcare, (beginning when they were just looking for work). Since my family was across the country and my in-laws were almost always not available (long term illnesses), I could not even LOOK for work most of the time when my kids were young. (and, in my case, I had a child when everyone else did, so there weren't even any day cares available). I wound up doing childcare at home, but I also owned my own home (with the bank) and had skills that others don't always have. Even so, my kids got used birthday and Christmas presents, did not get to swim at the Y except on free days (2-3 times a year). They were not "deprived". I know how to stretch a dollar, but we were also living on FAR more than minimum!

Worse, let's look at second marriages. If a woman marries, she generally gets to count 2 separate families. If she stays at home, the new spouse's income is generally not counted toward family income (note..this varies by state and may have changes in the past 2 years). The new spouse is not obligated to support these older kids unless he adopts them, just any new children. If a man with kids marries, though, he still has to pay child support (OF COURSE!!!!) BUT... he doesn't get to deduct his child support payments OR to count those other kids as part of his household. Just as an example, we were typically about $50-100 from getting all the various subsidies available, BEFORE paying out child support for my stepsons. We could not count one penny paid in child support, so we had much less money to live on than most people getting all kinds of subsidies for their kids. No question the step kids got their money (and more.. we had to pay for sports fees and other assorted items), THAT is not the issue, its that we were not "counted" as being below the poverty line, though we had less money to use than many who were!

My single neighbors, either divorced or never married, to contrast, WERE counted as being "poor", but had far more money to spend... AND got all kinds of subsidies.

Again, we did OK, but ONLY because we had land to grow a garden, live in an area with low housing prices, and I am very, very good at bargain hunting. And, I did childcare in my home, bringing in additional income. But, an income at a time when I probably would have been financially better off just sitting at home. (My usual profit after all expenses was about $40 a week, because I actually paid all the legal taxes and deductions) "Better yet" -- I should have just left my husband and then I would have gotten a second degree for free, plus all kinds of other assistance!

your valid 'anecdotes' notwithstanding, that still is no excuse for us to shrug off someone getting food aid and not using it for food.[/quote]
True and its illegal to do that... JUST like its illegal to encourage a 60 year old to "invest" in a company a broker knows full well is losing, its illegal to offer unsecured loans as secured (oops that IS NOT illegal... yet!!!), Its [not] illegal for a mortgage provider to offer a mortgage on a house they know (but the buyer doesn't) is over-priced, its not illegal to forclose on someone because of minor errors on paperword, etc, etc,.

Funny how your answer to a few idiots cheating on food stamps is "a good enough excuse" to cut food aid across the board, but try to ask for increased regulations or penalties for those other guys and THAT Phattscotty simply won't have.

And then.. to boost ironies, you just told me that aid "is available"... though I already told you we did not qualify.

And we've already talked about the corporation thingy, and I told you, by all means, while arguing against building a wall to keep non-Americans from entering America illegally, in the same breathe go ahead and build that wall to keep American corporations from leaving and paying up whatever % you say you need for an ever growing list of 'needs' My attitude on the corporations is that we should encourage a strong growth environment that does not interfere/over-regulate with a business becoming profitable especially early on.

Nice try, and exactly WHY we are in the problems we are in.

Walls won't solve immigration because they know that all they have to do is get here and there will be plenty of employers willing to hire them for what most citizens consider low wages and terrible conditions. (and that is even before this latest wave of kids fleeing terrorism).

As per your "encourage growth".. its garbage. We have had 30 years of increasingly pro-business policies. Sure, there was a boon INITIALLY, in the 80's, as business took advantage of the tech boom in conjunction with other benefits, but now we are paying the price of that largess. We no longer have a true social securlty trust fund (its been loaned out), we have crumbling roads and infrastructure, AND wages have not risen! We have lower taxes, but the irony is that the $100-$200 average people gained is nothing to the millions gained by the top earners under these policies, and the fact is that most people are losing far more than $200 in benefits for not having to pay that "extra" bit of taxes.

Sure, if you are in the top 1/10 of 1% of earners, you are doing just fine.... but the rest of us are not. Boosting minimum wage is the quickest and surest way to immediately improve the status of most people.. INCLUDING small businesses, who instantly benefit from the purchases people make.

Ya know, each employee of that company pays probably more taxes each money than does earn your initial example of 8$/hour family, and the products/services sold and resold and perhaps resold again also create all kinds of other jobs, also paying a lot in taxes. We should be thankful for the steady revenue stream the corporation already generates, and only tax them competitively, so they would never really want to leave because of taxes, I say 8-10-12% seems fair, II have a fair amount of knowledge to show how that's competitive and realistic and what it's based on but I'm not an expert and my reasoning is much more valid than 'because we need it'. And honestly, this attitude that is so prevalent amongst so many today that corporations are the bitches only here to serve the poor people and get no credit for the millions and billions they already generate not only in taxes but in wages and benefits as well.

Oh bull.. the basis of our economy is middle class people WORKING, not a few folks plopping down investments without regard to how they impact local economies.

And yes,there ARE a few big companies doing some things to promote the environment, etc, etc... and they often contract with companies that do the real dirty work for them. Not always, but more often than you want to admit.

The PROOF is, as they say, "in the pudding".. or in reality. The reality? Since Reagan took office and first began the initial stages of this "trickle down" garbage, money has increasingly move UP, to the top few. Infrastructure has crumbled --roads, air traffic controls, etc all not maintained as they ought.

Numbers of endangered species and losses of habitat INCREASE. There are a few exceptions -- the American Bald Eagle is one of them,

Alligators another, but there are plenty more failures.

Global climate change.. yeah, you keep trying to pretend its garbage, but scientists keep coming up with more firm proof of its reality.

I could go on and on.. but you are already 'putting fingers in your ears;, as usual, and pretending none of this is really the truth.

And I do know one other thing that helps guide me in all this, and that is 100 years ago people had the highest standard of living in the world, and they were relatively happy to live in a Free country where at least you deal with your own problems rather than have everyone else's problems chained to you regardless of your own problems.

Actually, 100 years ago we were in the first world war... and had just barely escaped one of the big gold hoarding problems, etc), and were about to experience a major flu epidemic that killed more people than the war.

We also had acres of untouched forests held in public trust, acres of free and open, available range land, And, while men might have experienced freedom, (more if they were wealthy), women and those of color definitely did NOT.

Further... that "freedom" led directly to what would follow in just over a decade.. namely, the DEPRESSION!

We did not have electric heaters, we did not have running water, we did not have automobiles, we had to hunt or grow our own food ourselves,

LOL.. you are off by a century there. Cars were not all that popular yet, but were around in 1913. Many people absolutely DID have running water (had for quite some time!) and most people bought food, unless they lived in the country. A lot of people did have small produce gardens, but many just bought food.

there were no public safety nets

Sure there were... just not national welfare. And, many, many people starved. Children were removed from homes, families put into "poor houses", etc.

, there was no tax on income, there was hardly such a thing as vacation, and there was little to no time to sit on our buts and watch TV.

Nice try, but while there was no TV, most people actually had more free time, not less, though that was changing quickly (so that statistics on this range widely depending on the exact year, the exact population, exact location ). Most importantly, the average white male had the perception of opportunity. He knew that there really were opportunities out there for his kids, even if he might not enjoy them himself.

Now.. that has changed, and that, above all, really makes the biggest difference in how people feel about their lives. People don't mind so much sacrificing to provide more for their kids. Working for what you know is no real return hurts.

And.. things were far from as rosey as you like to pretend then. Sure, many were OK, but many were not.

The people made it, starvation was not common and mostly only if in secluded areas and snowed in for a winter, because ya know why? When people are free and cannot be forced to take care of everyone else and their problems, they were also free to understand that their life was on the line and that meant they were independent people and there was no other choice but to do what one needed to do when they needed to do it, that their decisions had to be planned as best as possible, that there was no 'Meh, I'll do that later, my favorite show is on now' and there was no 'that's too hard, I don't wanna do that' people understood that life was not fair, and it never will be, no matter what, but they knew they were truly Free, and that is what made America a special place. And that is what made people charitable and to help their neighbors and for businesses and organizations to help each other because they knew it was up to them. Now, everyone just turns to government for the answers, and we have lost the spirit and the will to do all the things that made us great and made life much simpler. and really, I think that's all we want today.

LOL.. How about coming up with DATA to support your ideas? OOPS.. never mind. I know your idea of "data" is to find some obscure article somewhere that seems to support your ideas, not to weed through the volumes of junk to find real data that is verified and placed in a full context.

[mrswdk]

What gets the ire of a lot of folks out west is the number of illegal Mexicans (specifically, other south Americans tend to be less vocal) who come here illegally and then turn around to demand that we speak their language, cater to their culture.

And then the welfare state buys them mansions in Beverley Hills with tax payers money.

[PLAYER57832]

Yet, why should employers be punished, as they are just following the laws to the T and fitting perfectly through the loopholes created by the very same people you opine should punish/penalize them?

Are you serious? (never mind....)
Your hypocrisy is showing AGAIN.

The employers should be penalized because they are the ones driving the problem...the problem being that they are allowed to hire people for too low wages and poor conditions. Of course they are "following the law", but it needs to change.

Lawmakers who take money from Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Michael Bloomburg and are therefore 'financially persuaded' to keep wages low so that fatcats can get fatter.

You do realize that you picked some of the few who are actually working AGAINST these policies?

Sure, the "fat cats" want the laws, as do many smaller businesses who benefit immensely (though you have a hard time getting many of them to admit this publically).

BUT, the real issue is that as long as voters are persuaded to vote for the guy who is going to reduce taxes and oppose abortion, instead of looking at the actual long term impact of their overall policies... these folks will stay in power.

Funny, but as much as you protest, you vote right along with the crowd!

The reality that certain employers have workers lined up just waiting to work for minimum wage who yes will likely put up with a lot of shit even abuse is what makes the for the outcome that there is no reason for the employer to raise wages, in fact there is every reason to lower wages as the supply of unskilled labor is virtually unlimited.

The fact that wages just put people on the dole isn't enough?

You cannot have it both ways.. you cannot demand that people support themselves AND allow employers to pay them less than it takes for those people to support themselves.

The savings of the employer are not usually dispersed to other employees and almost always find their way directly into the employers pockets. It's one of many market related and non-market related reasons why real wages compared to inflation have remained virtually stagnant over the last 30 years. Culture plays a role as well, and so does ease of our safety nets. Even the New York Times sites the spike in Social Security Disability in recent decades as a contributing reason. I easily admit ceo's and company owners make exorbitant amounts of money and many times it easy to argue the workers truly made those profits and the owners/managers did not, and I wish the corporations would simply take less of a profit margin and transfer it straight to employees, but of course I am not for forcing it. It should be a voluntary thing and I would be all for people encouraging it naturally and organically, for the right reasons while I'm sure the exponentially growing government is more than happy to sit back and do nothing until enough people demand the government take over the issue and flip the switch to automatically make it right. I could go on and on, but there is no doubt that an increase in low/no skilled workers with the same amount of jobs put no pressure whatsoever on wages increasing and in fact is a recipe for keeping wages low and even decreasing wages.

Yeah, pretty much as I said.. all these tax breaks and so forth do nothing to help average workers, only the bigwigs. The bigwigs CAN afford to pay more in wages, though there is no doubt that many will pretend otherwise and that some folks will be caught in the middle legitimately.

However, concerning the minimum wage, wasn't it like 2 dollars something in the 70's? Well, the minimum wage has more than tripled since then, right? So why aren't minimum wagers 3 times richer now? That's why I'm saying raising the minimum wage won't solve the problem, and is just papering it over.

Why?

read above. you just pretty much explained the "why" yourself.

[PLAYER57832]

What gets the ire of a lot of folks out west is the number of illegal Mexicans (specifically, other south Americans tend to be less vocal) who come here illegally and then turn around to demand that we speak their language, cater to their culture.

And then the welfare state buys them mansions in Beverley Hills with tax payers money.

Bull.

The welfare state DOES allow CEOs to keep the mansions they built on our backs.. even after abuses and convictions.

[PLAYER57832]

Where did you get this chart and what do they use to make these conclusions? It pretty much flies in the face of reality.

[PLAYER57832]

If immigrants from developing countries are mostly relatively poor and thus extra competition for America's poor to deal with then does that not mean someone who professes to care about the poor while also advocating closed* borders is actually being intellectually consistent?

*to the foreign poor

No. People, even poor people, are not a one-way economic street: they don't just create demand for jobs for themselves, they also create demand for many other products and services. Those additional products and services require more inputs to produce, so ultimately employers will need more employees.

This requires context.

More people.. ANY increase of people will certainly need more products, thus any kind of population increase, skilled or not, means an increased demand for goods.

HOWEVER, the issue here is whether illegal immigrants and low-skilled legal immigrants provide more than they draw from our economy at present. That is a much, much more complex and nuanced question.

Absolutely, we do and always will need some low-skilled immigration, for a lot of reasons. We have NO need for illegal immigration, period! That said, I don't buy the current policy of making people who come here to work illegal. Solutions are complex and belong in, have been dealt with in, other threads so I won't take up more space here on the legal/illegal aspect except to say that its important to distinguish between the two. Even if the problem brought on by illegal immigration CAN mirror some of the issues with too many legal low-skilled workers, the issues are not the same. (should not be the same, even if politicians like to blur the two issues).

Illegal employment specifically is a problem because it is virtually guaranteed to mean poorer conditions, lower wages and less return to the community than legal work.

And that is the basic issue... sure, even low wage workers do buy things, but how? If a worker buys food with food stamps, the money does still go into the grocer's "pocket", just the same as if its cash money. HOWEVER, for society it makes a big difference. Food stamps are supported by other tax payers. If the person makes enough to buy the food with just wages, then society immediately gains by not having to put out that extra for food stamps. PLUS, that person pays some taxes.

Now.. to answer the expected(low wage earners don't pay taxes" bit.. I would fix that, and have everyone pay at least some taxes, BUT.. even without that provision, the fact is that it costs society more to offer food stamps than to have workers buy food with their own wages.

[PLAYER57832]

Well, I'll try to level with ya here. Basically my response is the only one's whom a wage is going to dictate whether or not they live a 'decent' life are those who have 'decent' skills and can demand a 'decent' wage, and then what they do with their money. If they truly do make intelligent decisions, then they are not likely to remain at minimum wage for very long,

This is the most repulsively wrong essence of your answer.

AND.. its actually besides the point, anyway.

The bottom line is that WORK is worthwhile. If you need someone to do something, you can pay them enough to support themselves.. or find another way to accomplish the task/don't do it. The idea that labor is a "flexible" item with no floor basis is just wrong. You cannot pay less for goods than it takes to produce them, not for long. The cost of labor is the cost to feed, house, cloth and supply medical care. In the US we mostly expect a tad more for a few extras, but those ARE the basics. In most areas, minimum wage does NOT provide enough, not unless you are living with someone else who helps support you or you are getting other types of assistance from someone.

Education and effort do help one get ahead, but they are by no means any guarantee, particularly for women and minorities. A wealthy OR good-looking woman beats out one with skills... and they way wealth mostly matters, by-the way, is that they can make themselves look better. Get married to the "wrong" person and it impacts you far, FAR more than education or personal effort. Get injured or just get old.. and watch out.

Make any poor financial decision, INCLUDING decisions that seem to make sense, that are following supposedly good advice -- like investing in real estate, stocks, other things that wind up being wrong decisions...

Folks like you want to pretend that all of that is just "given", that only a few or only the stupid invest wrong, marry the wrong person, etc.. and that because those area aberrations, they can be ignored. In fact, the number of people who escape most of that is the minority. The SAME minority that achieves success.

[mrswdk]

How about coming up with DATA to support your ideas?

Ironic.

[AndyDufresne]

Player, mrswdk, and PS. What a group! Keep this up.


--Andy

[Lootifer]

Player, mrswdk, and PS. What a group! Keep this up.


--Andy

Please dont tell me its actually worth reading!?

[Phatscotty]

What gets the ire of a lot of folks out west is the number of illegal Mexicans (specifically, other south Americans tend to be less vocal) who come here illegally and then turn around to demand that we speak their language, cater to their culture.

And then the welfare state buys them mansions in Beverley Hills with tax payers money.

actually......

j/k