[eweissenbach]

Originally Posted by Pointer

When medical insurance premiums began to rise many full time jobs became part time jobs so the burden was sifted to the now part time employee. Where minimum wage with benefits would be manageable then simply isn't now. One can work two & three jobs and still not have medical insurance.

I think that everyone should be able to work for a livable wage regardless of anything other then an honest days work. How many would avoid the lure of gangs and selling drugs and guns etc.

Many collage students come out with so much debt, because gone are the days when one could work their way through and pay the rent. Today the promised jobs after collage are not there either. I have two children paying off collage debt, one is an engineer and one has a masters in applied math, both of whom had a long search before they could find jobs in their fields and who even with "professional salaries, have to have roommates to pay for the rent.

I think it's easy to think and say that people don't want to work rather then face the complicated issues facing todays youth and young families. It's not the same world as when we were young.

While it sounds reasonable to say that everything will just go up I don't think that is a proven fact. A redistribution of wealth needs to happen.The money trickles up but doesn't trickle down.

Follow the money and see where the problem lies. It may not be where you'd like to think it is.

Your statement I have highlighted in red says a lot. I find it interesting how many people think that they have it figured out because they have gone through life without dealing with financial hardship. I have had an easy life and was never unemployed or in financial distress, but I recognize that it was a combination of work, education, and good fortune. I often look at others who are suffering, not because of lack of effort, and say "there, but for the grace of God go I".

[Rags123]

I see posts filled with sympathy and empathy for those less fortunate, but NOTHING to support a redistribution of wealth from an economic standpoint.

It seems this has been tried and failed in every case. I try not to mix up feeling bad for people versus an economic policy for the country.

I would prefer to see a redistribution of talent; that is perhaps not the best way to say it, but allowing young people to be able to expand their talent and thus their ability to make more money. If that makes me have less empathy, I am sorry, but just redistributing wealth has NEVER worked.

A proposal to get young people better educated and thus have more oppurtunities to make money would be a start, and allowing that minimum wage to grow within companies when you advance yourself following some kind of criteria set when you join the company would be great.

Suppose this makes no sense but what is being touted by posters is NOT a redistribution of wealth in any economic sense at all. It offers no more chances for young folks or disadvantaged folks to make more money.

[kittygilchrist]

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

Your statement I have highlighted in red says a lot. I find it interesting how many people think that they have it figured out because they have gone through life without dealing with financial hardship. I have had an easy life and was never unemployed or in financial distress, but I recognize that it was a combination of work, education, and good fortune. I often look at others who are suffering, not because of lack of effort, and say "there, but for the grace of God go I".

And what do you do for the "less fortunate"?

[mickey100]

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr

Exactly! Minimum wage is what is paid to part timers and entry level employees with no education or skills. If a person has an education or a speciality they are going to make more than minimum wage.

�..

Uh, I have to disagree. I have some relatives and friends who have at least 2 year college degrees, who are working for minimum wage or not much more than minimum wage. They are hard working people, but they live in a city where the manufacturers that used to hire people, have left or closed, and there just aren't a lot of jobs. I have a close relative with a good job history, references, etc., with a degree in computer technology, who makes $10 and hour driving a forklift. Things are tough for people out there. Many are unemployed or underemployed thru no fault of their own. I have a step brother who got laid off when he was in his 50's, too soon to collect his pension, and took a minimum wage job for 5 or 6 years, to tide his family over. It was all he could get. Thousands had been laid off from this company (Kodak) so jobs were scarce. He had worked 30 some years as a chemist.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

So how do you feel about paying for food stamps through your tax dollars, and subsidizing health care for Wal-Mart employees while the company makes billions?

What does that have to do with a discussion about raising the minimum wage?

Do you really think that food stamps will go away if we raise the minimum wage?

Like I said, all it will do, in the long run, is raise prices. No one will be better off.

Do you see something wrong with a company like Wal-Mart making billions of dollars? They are the largest retailer in the US and provide jobs for millions of people. Maybe it would be better if all of their executives and management staff made minimum wage. Who would that help?

As far as taxpayer dollars subsidizing their employees health care, doesn't that come from the new ACA law? Wouldn't those same people have subsidies for their health care if they worked elsewhere or didn't work at all? Why is it that some of us believe that it is the responsibility of an employer to provide health care insurance for it's employees? Should they provide food, clothing and housing for them as well?

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Originally Posted by mickey100

Uh, I have to disagree. I have some relatives and friends who have at least 2 year college degrees, who are working for minimum wage or not much more than minimum wage. They are hard working people, but they live in a city where the manufacturers that used to hire people, have left or closed, and there just aren't a lot of jobs. I have a close relative with a good job history, references, etc., with a degree in computer technology, who makes $10 and hour driving a forklift. Things are tough for people out there. Many are unemployed or underemployed thru no fault of their own. I have a step brother who got laid off when he was in his 50's, too soon to collect his pension, and took a minimum wage job for 5 or 6 years, to tide his family over. It was all he could get. Thousands had been laid off from this company (Kodak) so jobs were scarce. He had worked 30 some years as a chemist.

First of all, you can't base an argument on a few anecdotal examples. Yes, some kids just out of college are having trouble finding jobs. Some are doing minimum wage or close to minimum wage jobs temporarily until they find something in their field. This is certainly happening in places like Detroit where manufacturing has closed up and left.

But we have to ask ourselves why have so many manufacturers closed up and left? Maybe it's because the owners and upper management are greedy bastards and want to make more money for themselves. Or maybe it's because they can go elsewhere and have their products made for less money where labor costs are lower. Or maybe they feel a responsibility to their stockholders to increase profits so that their IRAs 401Ks and other investments will allow them to have a decent retirement. So they go to where there is cheap labor.

It always amazes me that US companies can actually do better by shipping parts overseas, having them assembled over there and then having them shipped back here than by keeping the whole process here. The shipping and handling cost have to be huge, yet they continue to do it. Something is wrong.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr

What does that have to do with a discussion about raising the minimum wage?

Do you really think that food stamps will go away if we raise the minimum wage?

Like I said, all it will do, in the long run, is raise prices. No one will be better off.

Do you see something wrong with a company like Wal-Mart making billions of dollars? They are the largest retailer in the US and provide jobs for millions of people. Maybe it would be better if all of their executives and management staff made minimum wage. Who would that help?

As far as taxpayer dollars subsidizing their employees health care, doesn't that come from the new ACA law? Wouldn't those same people have subsidies for their health care if they worked elsewhere or didn't work at all? Why is it that some of us believe that it is the responsibility of an employer to provide health care insurance for it's employees? Should they provide food, clothing and housing for them as well?

I agree.

I like Walmart. They save people a LOT of money with their business practices. I am sick of people bundling all of big business together and throwing them in the toilet. Do they all work for the government or in teaching institutions to be so out of touch with how economics works?????

And when some big business tank, like in Akron and Youngstown, Ohio, or where there is little opportunity to better yourself, like in rural Vermont, then you move to someplace that offers such an opportunity. We did and a lot of people we know did.

Life isn't easy. Some people work harder at making a life of crime then if they had a legitimate job. I feel great compassion for the truly disabled and those who cannot work. Some people always think we take care of too few. And some people always think we take care of too many.

One person who needs government assistance and doesn't get it is too many

And one person who defrauds the government by being able bodied and faking a disability is to many.

[Cedwards38]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

I agree.

I like Walmart. They save people a LOT of money with their business practices. I am sick of people bundling all of big business together and throwing them in the toilet. Do they all work for the government or in teaching institutions to be so out of touch with how economics works?????

And when some big business tank, like in Akron and Youngstown, Ohio, or where there is little opportunity to better yourself, like in rural Vermont, then you move to someplace that offers such an opportunity. We did and a lot of people we know did.

Life isn't easy. Some people work harder at making a life of crime then if they had a legitimate job. I feel great compassion for the truly disabled and those who cannot work. Some people always think we take care of too few. And some people always think we take care of too many.

One person who needs government assistance and doesn't get it is too many

And one person who defrauds the government by being able bodied and faking a disability is to many.

Do they all work for the government or in teaching institutions to be so out of touch with how economics works?????

Good morning Gracie! As one who spent a career in public education, I'm curious what you mean by the statement I've highlighted above.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Cedwards38

Do they all work for the government or in teaching institutions to be so out of touch with how economics works?????

Good morning Gracie! As one who spent a career in public education, I'm curious what you mean by the statement I've highlighted above.

Some who are not employed by a for profit business are not aware how it works. Or how business ethics work, or know what a sales campaign is or a sales goal, and don't know what it's like to NEVER be on vacation from your job or know that you can't take sick days even when you are sick. It is a different climate of life to work in an Academic setting and in a business setting. I have done both and learned a lot from each, but if I had done one and not the other I would not have been as aware of the difference. I was the same in each. I could not stop worrying about some kids I taught or ever stop trying to get through to them. But it is a different way to live and to make a living for sure. Business people often don't understand the academic setting either.

[TexaninVA]

Income inequality is natural and inevitable, because people are obviously not equal in all kinds of ways ... smarts, work ethic, morality, luck etc.

The question thus becomes how much income inequality is acceptable before a genuine societal problem becomes inevitable.

[Rags123]

An interesting take on this subject and one that I have espouse

"Income inequality is the public-policy topic of the moment, embraced as an issue across the political spectrum. Since the 1970s, the gap in incomes between those who earn the most and those who earn the least has increased markedly. Some have described this as a �hollowing out� of the middle class and everyone, it seems, agrees it�s a bad thing. But why is it occurring at all? The answer is that the US economy has been undergoing fundamental changes, changes that benefit workers with skills and smarts, but leave behind those with lesser educations."

The real reason for income inequality - Opinion - The Boston Globe

Also from that article....opinion piece....

"Jobs today require more education than they once did. According to US Census data, 66 percent of all jobs in 1975 were held by those with high school degrees or less, while just 34 percent required some postsecondary education. By 2012, those figures had almost completely reversed: 65 percent of all jobs required post-secondary education, while just 35 percent were available to those with high school or less. The upshot: If you don�t have skills, it�s tough to find work.

Indeed, the unemployment rate confirms that, tracking almost exactly to education. Those without a high school degree, for example, had an 11 percent unemployment rate in 2013. Those with BAs, meanwhile, had just a 4 percent unemployment rate."


NOW....LAY that alongside this article from today also....

"Senators have introduced two bills in the past few weeks that could make make it easier for students to pay for college and manage debt. Both bills would trim red tape from some frustrating features of the federal financial aid system. And both bills are bipartisan, with heavyweight Republican sponsors and interest from the House of Representatives.

It might seem like this could add up to something rare � real lawmaking! But don't get too excited. As much as members of Congress love to talk about helping students pay for college, these proposals are likely to get stuck, like everything else, in Congressional dysfunction, partisanship, and protocol.

That's even though the legislation is trying to solve what almost everyone agrees is a problem: the system of federal grants and loans for college is far too complicated."



Why two bipartisan bills to make college affordable are going nowhere in Congress - Vox

I am not going to comment on the legislation since p.......l is not allowed but read the article. Seems many who want to raise the minimum wage, etc, oppose the offering of opportunity !

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

Here is an excellent article authored by a billionaire, Nick Hanauer. Although I think his "pitchforks" analogy is overheated, his arguments make sense. I think he presents the problem and the solution in an apolitical manner. Read it and be your own judge.

The Pitchforks Are Coming

The article by Hanauer represents slick salesmanship but it's not capitalism. I think it's socialism when the government tries to transfer wealth from one person to another but any gain is bound to be short lived because it goes against basic economic realities.

Hanauer points to Seattle and San Francisco as success stories. But who among us would want to retire there? Who would be able to afford owning their own home or even renting? Your retirement savings wouldn't go very far in either of those places.

[manaboutown]

A large middle class supports stability in a country. They are its backbone: They do most of the work, pay most of the taxes and live reasonably comfortably. They are patriotic, law abiding and want better lives for their descendants. These are the "do"s" or "doers".

Among things that concern me today are the breathtaking compensation, private jets for personal use and other perks given the top dogs/cats in large publicly held companies these days. Many if not most of them have buddies on their company's boards and they are on their buddies' boards. They vote each other whopping pay packages. This comes from money due the stockholders. The board members are supposed to represent the interests of the stockholders, but....

Too many people are feeding at the taxpayer funded public trough these days. These are the "don'ts", "won't's" and "can'ts". I have no problems with the can'ts who not from their choice but from bad fortune suffer physically, mentally or otherwise and truly require some form of assistance, temporarily or permanently, to live. The don'ts and won'ts live off the efforts of those who work and pay taxes. Shame on them. Unfortunately our current welfare system accepts and even encourages them.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by TexaninVA

Income inequality is natural and inevitable, because people are obviously not equal in all kinds of ways ... smarts, work ethic, morality, luck etc.

The question thus becomes how much income inequality is acceptable before a genuine societal problem becomes inevitable.

THAT IS just the deepest thing I have read on here for a good while.

[Pointer]

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr

What does that have to do with a discussion about raising the minimum wage?

Do you really think that food stamps will go away if we raise the minimum wage?

Like I said, all it will do, in the long run, is raise prices. No one will be better off.

Do you see something wrong with a company like Wal-Mart making billions of dollars? They are the largest retailer in the US and provide jobs for millions of people. Maybe it would be better if all of their executives and management staff made minimum wage. Who would that help?

As far as taxpayer dollars subsidizing their employees health care, doesn't that come from the new ACA law? Wouldn't those same people have subsidies for their health care if they worked elsewhere or didn't work at all? Why is it that some of us believe that it is the responsibility of an employer to provide health care insurance for it's employees? Should they provide food, clothing and housing for them as well?

Yes!!! Why does one work if not to provide Food , Shelter and Clothing???

I don't think that Walmart provides good jobs at all. CEO's in this country are paid so much more then in another countries and that takes from the hourly wage earners. Study after study has shown that when you take care of the employee you get better loyalty and output and in the end costs the company less.
Proctor and Gamble is one company who believes this and provides good jobs. When a job doesn't cover the basic's then you get disgruntled, depressed "why bother" employee's who get sick.