The New American Politics thread

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by ernie

Higher minimum wage is for people who through (usually) no actual fault of their own are below the poverty line unable to satisfactorily provide for family and self. Which is a tremendous amount of people in the US.

Although I agree that this is probably what the issue has become, I submit that this should never be the issue in the first place because minimum wage jobs are not supposed to be for such people to begin with.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by ernie

But you know what doesn't work? The education system from K-12.

I disagree.

The system works. It could work better, and in some areas it needs substantial improvement, but, overall, the system works.

Those who graduate from high school are clearly more articulate, educated, and well-rounded than those who are entering kindergarten.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Generally speaking, yes.

ETA: I saw a quote a few days ago that I think speaks to this matter:

Rich people plan for three generations because they can. Poor people plan for how they will eat on Saturday night

You have some pretty brutal assumptions about poor people.

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Although I agree that this is probably what the issue has become, I submit that this should never be the issue in the first place because minimum wage jobs are not supposed to be for such people to begin with.

So your argument is based in what you think a minimum wage job should be for vs what people who are living in those conditions are actually dealing with?

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

I disagree.

The system works. It could work better, and in some areas it needs substantial improvement, but, overall, the system works.

Those who graduate from high school are clearly more articulate, educated, and well-rounded than those who are entering kindergarten.

So the education system works because 18 year olds are more articulate than 6 year olds? The bar is low, holy s***.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Although I agree that this is probably what the issue has become, I submit that this should never be the issue in the first place because minimum wage jobs are not supposed to be for such people to begin with.

BUt they are and there is nothing that is going to change it any time soon. So instead of dealing with what should be perhaps it's time to deal with what the reality is.

And the US public school system is a mess for a very large chunk of the population.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by MattyC

You have some pretty brutal assumptions about poor people.

The downward shift in the bottom 20% isn't just structural, but cultural as well.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

The disdain and heartlessness some have towards the poor, disadvantaged and uneducated blows my mind. I guess it's just easier for many who have 'gotten theirs' to not give a crap about millions being left out in the cold because of circumstances beyond their control. Guys like HockeyIlliterate are probably okay with tax breaks for big corporations so they can funnel even bigger bonuses to their ludicrously rich CEOs, but god forbid the worst jobs out there pay over $20k a year

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

And nearly half are under 24. I have a hard time buying that a 20 year old with no kids paying $200 a month rent for a decent place as someone raising a family in a DC suburb.

$200/month for rent? Where in the US are you finding $200/month for rent? I've had friends with roommates here in Pittsburgh, which doesn't have exorbitant housing costs in line with DC/Boston/NYC/LA--they were all paying between $500-700/month to share an apartment. $200/month isn't even close to normal, unless the kid is still living at home. And if you are in one of those bigger cities, $200 might buy you a car to sleep in.

At some level, a high enough minimum wage will kill jobs. You can't argue that a $50 minimum wage wouldn't be devastating in the amount of jobs it kills.

Has anyone advocated for a $50 minimum wage? I've heard that bandied about before on places like Fox News, and it's so incredibly tone deaf. No one is saying we need to suddenly make all minimum wage workers 6 figure/year earners. No one is saying we need them to suddenly be upper middle class. But no one can survive on under $20k a year in this day and age. Period, end of story. I don't care how well you budget or how hard you scrimp and save, $20k/year isn't viable for even a single person with no dependents. And by the way, $20 is still nearly $5000 higher than 40 hrs/52 weeks a year on minimum wage.

There's also the issue with a lot of those minimum wage employers refusing to give workers 40 hours, and also refusing to give them regular schedules so that they can get a second job to to make ends meet around that insufficient wage from the first job.

The fact is though, it is hard to figure out that right number that strikes the balance where the benefits are greater than the risks. In my opinion $15 is above that line nationally. There are regions in the US where it makes sense, but there are regions where it would have very negative effects. Are there countries in the world that have $15USD min wages that haven't seen negative affects? How does their cost of living compare?

Australia's minimum wage for workers over 21 is over $15/hr. I can't speak to their exacts for their economy, but it doesn't seem like they're doing all that bad.

There's also a rate at which income is so low that the federal government is forced to step in and help the people who aren't making enough to survive on their own, despite working full time (or at least wanting to work full time if given the opportunity). Income has gotten to that point. It could easily be made a state issue, and some states have actually stepped up to the plate.

For example, Minnesota has their minimum wage set to increase from $9 last year to $9.50 next year (with exceptions for trainees, small businesses, etc). Minnesota has also seen strong economic growth in the last few years under progressive leadership. Directly next door, Wisconsin has passed laws to bust up unions, has become a "right to work" state, and they're facing budgetary shortfalls and painfully slow job growth.

There is no one who is championing a $50 minimum wage, that's preposterous. The change in quality of life from making $15k a year and making $25k a year is dramatic. By the way, to make that $25k a year a possibility, the minimum wage would only need to be around $12/hour, which is likely the actual end goal of the campaigning of people like Bernie Sanders. Again--do it the way Minnesota did it. Leave exceptions for trainees, leave exceptions for businesses with fewer than 50 employees, leave exceptions for those under say 21 years of age. I'd love to let states deal with it, but more states are working to abolish minimum wage than to bring it in line with current cost-of-living realities.

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Of course someone can go to college, provided that they have the academic record to support admittance. Financial aid exists and it is given out to many (if not most) students. Cheaper community colleges exist, and financial aid works there too.

My boss has two children in college right now, at a mid-size school. Despite getting pretty sizable scholarships, they're paying over $30k/year each for their children to go to college. Fortunately my boss is upper middle class enough to afford it. If you're coming from a family where your parents are already in poverty? That isn't an option. Just flat out isn't an option. You want people to be responsible with their money, but at the same time you're advocating that they just go to college despite the massive costs involved?

Even Penn State, a state school, for in-state tuition charges over 17k a year, so for four years of school, you have nearly 80k in debt. That's fiscally responsible, right?

And what about all of the people who go 80k+ into debt to go to college as you suggest, who then can't manage to get a job making enough money to repay that debt? They can't default on a student loan, there's no bankruptcy to get out of that student loan debt (though again, Donald Trump has repeatedly made poor investments and put companies into bankruptcy while himself coming out scot-free). They'll come after you no matter what to get that money back for those loans.

It's not as simple as "go to college, get a good job, pay your bills responsibly." If it were that easy, everyone would do it.

None of this helps me personally, by the way. My taxes would be raised under Sanders plan. I also went and got my education and paid for every last penny of it by myself. I worked my butt off to get where I am today and I'm damn proud of it--I also came from a middle class family to start with. I wasn't starting off behind the 8-ball, I got a running start because I'm a white girl who grew up in a decent neighborhood and got a decent education and also got really lucky to know the right people to help her succeed.

Success is a lot of hard work, certainly, but it's also a whole lot of luck.

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Generally speaking, yes.

ETA: I saw a quote a few days ago that I think speaks to this matter:

Rich people plan for three generations. Poor people plan for Saturday night

Rich people can afford to plan for three generations (and the two generations after don't really have to plan, because everything was given to them. Look at the Waltons. Daddy did all the work and left them millionaires through no real work of their own.). Poor people have to focus on surviving.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by peter12

The downward shift in the bottom 20% isn't just structural, but cultural as well.

Interesting statement. Can you explain further?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by peter12

The downward shift in the bottom 20% isn't just structural, but cultural as well.

I don't disagree, but wouldn't you agree that the best way to fend off that culture is to provide a proper education and safety net for the people in these scenarios so that the people they bring into this world have an equal opportunity as others to better themselves and their situation?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by New Era

Interesting statement. Can you explain further?

The collapse in marriage being the main thing, but there are lots of other weird socio-economic phenomenons that have slowly been eroding the social networks of the bottom 20% ever since the 1970s.

What is stranger is that these trends have persisted, even through good times. Stagnant wages in unstable industries certainly remain an important aspect of the discussion though. I don't know exactly where I stand on the minimum wage - certainly small and incremental changes in certain industries don't seem to effect niche employment.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I don't disagree, but wouldn't you agree that the best way to fend off that culture is to provide a proper education and safety net for the people in these scenarios so that the people they bring into this world have an equal opportunity as others to better themselves and their situation?

The problem is that cultural shifts of the magnitude occurring in the US, specifically, are not easily changed through policy prescriptions - although I don't disagree that governments should do something.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by peter12

The problem is that cultural shifts of the magnitude occurring in the US, specifically, are not easily changed through policy prescriptions - although I don't disagree that governments should do something.

What does being easy have to do with it? It might be an excuse if the programs were implemented and working very slowly. But to use it as a reason to just not do it makes very little sense.

"The ship is leaking, Sir! All the men in the bottom dwellings are drowning."

"Close off the hatches, there is no helping them."

"But sir, we just need to use a small portion of the silverware to patch the holes. If you just let us take..."

"Nope. Sounds hard. Besides, the upper class needs their 3 forks. How will they know what to use for their salad, and which for their main?"

[peter12]

Originally Posted by MattyC

What does being easy have to do with it? It might be an excuse if the programs were implemented and working very slowly. But to use it as a reason to just not do it makes very little sense.

"The ship is leaking, Sir! All the men in the bottom dwellings are drowning."

"Close off the hatches, there is no helping them."

"But sir, we just need to use a small portion of the silverware to patch the holes. If you just let us take..."

"Nope. Sounds hard."

Okay, let's not equivocate. Almost impossible to change.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by peter12

Okay, let's not equivocate. Almost impossible to change.

How do you know? Have we tried? Like really tried?

[Street Pharmacist]

Government prescriptions are probably the most effective. The trouble is they're difficult to measure and take a very long time.

Ie. Crime rate plunges after abortion allowed

[peter12]

Originally Posted by MattyC

How do you know? Have we tried? Like really tried?

Great Society was a disaster.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by MattyC

You have some pretty brutal assumptions about poor people.

I don't think that the "planning for the future" is simply because they can. Rather, I think it is because they want to.

Originally Posted by MattyC

So your argument is based in what you think a minimum wage job should be for vs what people who are living in those conditions are actually dealing with?

There are ways to address the situations in which people currently find themselves without having to adjust the minimum wage. Things like family planning, access to higher education, subsidized child care, and so on. I don't necessarily agree with all of these options, but I believe that they should be discussed as well, and that attention should not solely rest on wages.

Originally Posted by MattyC

So the education system works because 18 year olds are more articulate than 6 year olds? The bar is low, holy s***.

I have to say, your reply made me laugh.

Originally Posted by ernie

BUt they are and there is nothing that is going to change it any time soon.

I disagree. Family planning can address some of issues surrounding poverty and the fact that some of those in minimum wage jobs have children. Criminal justice reform can address some of the issues surrounding minimum wage-earning workers. Less restrictive zoning can address housing costs, which might help. The list goes on.

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

The disdain and heartlessness some have towards the poor, disadvantaged and uneducated blows my mind.

And yet the soft bigotry of low expectations continues to march on...

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

And yet the soft bigotry of low expectations continues to march on...

You do realize that a certain percentage of the population will always be poor and disadvantaged? It has nothing to do with 'low expectations'... it's called reality. Though, I guess from your ivory tower you might not be able to see this, or care. Thankfully, for every person like you, there are ten others that actually care about poor people, and are fighting to make a difference. I bet that pisses you off to no end lol.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

You do realize that a certain percentage of the population will always be poor and disadvantaged? It has nothing to do with 'low expectations'... it's called reality. Though, I guess from your ivory tower you might not be able to see this, or care. Thankfully, for every person like you, there are ten others that actually care about poor people, and are fighting to make a difference. I bet that pisses you off to no end lol.

Oh man, give yourself a medal.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

I don't think that the "planning for the future" is simply because they can. Rather, I think it is because they want to.

Sure, there are rich people who don't (ie, lottery winners), but having expendable income to the point that you can save for future is obviously a large factor in whether or not you do. Why would you think about future generations when you don't know where your own next meal is coming from?

There are ways to address the situations in which people currently find themselves without having to adjust the minimum wage. Things like family planning, access to higher education, subsidized child care, and so on. I don't necessarily agree with all of these options, but I believe that they should be discussed as well, and that attention should not solely rest on wages.

I agree. I'm personally not a proponent of minimum wage hikes over changes in CPI and/or inflation. And agree with the programs you suggest, but how can you suggest them as alternatives and disagree with them in same breath? Do you really believe that we just shouldn't do anything? Out of family planning, access to higher education and subsidized child care, which do you disagree with and why? Just because they will be funded by the wealth of people who don't need a significant proportion of it anyways?