Mocking The Poor

[The Nehor]

There is no call for such a hypocritical, hyper-defensive reaction to my perfectly reasonable and well-intended and instructive questions--which you have yet to answer. Unwarranted and blustering indignation degrades rather than elevates the discussion.

 

You already attempted to degrade it by turning yourself into the brilliant professor lecturing his dim pupil. It is painfully transparent.

 

Instructive leading questions are annoying. They also got Socrates killed and I sympathize a bit with the people who locked him up to get him to shut up.

 

 

First, I don't consider my solution to be universally guaranteed and immediate. Rather, I consider it the best of the set of imperfect solutions, and one considerably preferable to the counter-productive and freedom restricting option you favor.

 

And I disrespectfully disagree.

 

 

Second, contrary to your bald assertions, my solution isn't a "pipe-dream," and it can and continues to work in our current economy as evinced by the fact that the vast majority of employed workers (I believe it is somewhere around 94%) receive wages that are higher than the minimum, and this in a way that doesn't exacerbate unemployment, among other unintended consequences, as would your freedom-restricting counter-solution.

 

it is not working. It works for those able and willing to get an education or learn a skill.  If everyone does it it stops working. This is already happening. Lots of people with college degrees are fighting to get fast food jobs and not just those with the often unemployable degrees.

 

 

Third, I have worked as a skilled laborer in unskilled labor jobs in the past, and I currently face the prospects of doing so again in the near future. So, I am not unsympathetic to the struggle. And, nothing I have said could in any reasonable sense be construed as suggesting, "Screw you, I got mine," or that I am somehow patting myself on the back. You are clearly projecting.

 

Am I supposed to beat upon my breast and protest how hard I had it so we can find out who is the more debased?

 

 

Fourth, my solution isn't just about expanding skill sets as employees. It is about increasing one's productivity and value in the market place. This can be done in ways other than doing "grunt work" (as you call it) for someone else.

 

Yet someone has to do the grunt work and getting phd in berry picking or janitorial studies is not going to lead to those jobs paying more.

 

 

Fifth, many of the laborers working at the unskilled jobs are illegal immigrants. There is a reason for this. Had you taken the time to perform the Econ 101 exercise I suggested, and had you gone a step further factoring in the economic effects of minimum wage on substitute labor (such as illegal labor), rather than spouting a stream of unwarranted and demonstrably false dismissals, you may have discovered that another unintended consequence of minimum wage laws besides restricting freedom and increasing unemployment, is that it encourages illegal immigration, thereby further displacing unskilled legal citizens and making matters worse for the demographic it was intended to help.

 

Do you really imagine John Q. American will go out in the fields and pick fruit for $5 an hour but immigrants are willing to do it for $4 an hour and minimum wage is taking their jobs. The graph says that but the graph is dead wrong. They can't even get John Q. American to do the job for minimum wage.

 

 

No...what we have is you constructing a straw man suited to your limited grasp of the issue (I have no idea where you came up with the so-called "classical economist" since economic development is heavily reliant on population growth). My solution made no mention of "dying off." In fact, it is a solution which has promoted the greatest expansion of wealth in world history, and this during a baby boom and population growth, for heaven sake.

 

No, no, NO!!!!

 

Economic development comes best for all parties when the supplies of capital and labor are in line. If population growth alone stimulated growth we would abolish immigration controls and so would every other nation and we would compete to win people over.

 

The baby boomers were a special case. America had just come out of World War II relatively unscathed while most of the rest of the world (pretty much all of the developed world) were dealing with population shortages, rebuilding due to the war, and collapse of colonial empires. We were the new economic superpower. We had industry, people to man it, and a huge market out there. The comparative advantage was a huge boon. If we were to grow at that rate now projections show us going backwards economically.

 

 

In other words, you are all about unwittingly promoting unemployment, encouraging illegal immigration, stoking inflation, and restricting freedoms, among a number of unintended consequences which negatively impact more so the poor, all because you are indignant against and dismissive of freshman level economics. 

 

With compassion like that, who needs enemies.

 

Play the National Anthem while looking at this picture to get my response to this patriotic and virtuous appeal.

 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That is the more convincing reason. Public education spiked during that period too. Part of the intent was to instill patriotism to keep the children of the workers from rising up. It worked.

There is nothing conving about it for it is simply not what happened. We can even look at Wikipedia. There they list part of the reason was that all of the migrant workers were working for less than the locals and "stealing" the jobs. So they inistituted MW because why would you hire a chinese or black worker and pay them 1 dollar an hour when you can hire a white guy for the same job. It was instituted to "protect" the jobs of the white worker.,

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%80%93Bacon_Act

 

 

In 1927, a contractor employed African-American workers from Alabama to build a Veterans' Bureau hospital in the district of Congressman Bacon.^[5] Prompted by concerns about the conditions of workers, displacement of local workers by migrant workers, and competitive pressure toward lower wages,^[6] Bacon introduced the first version of his bill in 1927.

Bolded by me

 

So they list Black people and imigrants and local workers. The act was designed to "protect" those local workers from the others listed.

 

Then there is this.

 

Over the next few years, Bacon attempted to introduce variations on the prevailing wage bill 13 times.^[7][8] Finally, in the midst of the Great Depression, with local workers complaining about cheap labor taking their jobs and Congressmen frustrated that their efforts to bring "pork barrel" projects home to their districts did not result in jobs (and therefore political support) from their constituents,^[5] the Hoover Administration requested that Congress reconsider the Act once more as a means of preventing falling wages

 

So in the end it was not racial. But note that the start for the push was soley racial or that it was meant to discrimiate against blacks and migrant workers.

 

Its funny that Saint says the MW was implimented to stop facsism and communism as both of those 2 types of government are about more control for the government. And MW is just the government exerting more control on the private sector. I mean what a interesting thing to say Saint.

Edited January 8, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[The Nehor]

There is nothing conving about it for it is simply not what happened. We can even look at Wikipedia. There they list part of the reason was that all of the migrant workers were working for less than the locals and "stealing" the jobs. So they inistituted MW because why would you hire a chinese or black worker and pay them 1 dollar an hour when you can hire a white guy for the same job. It was instituted to "protect" the jobs of the white worker.,

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis–Bacon_Act

Bolded by me

 

So they list Black people and imigrants and local workers. The act was designed to "protect" those local workers from the others listed.

 

Then there is this.

 

So in the end it was not racial. But note that the start for the push was soley racial or that it was meant to discrimiate against blacks and migrant workers.

And that is why you fail......the bolded part.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That is an oversimplification. While some endorsed the idea for its racial discrimination (South Africa in particular) to say it was the main reason it exists ignores many other proponents for the minimum wage and their rationale for it.

I specifically stated that was the first reason it was being instituted. Later in the 30's that reason changed. But the original reason was racial. See my prevous post.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

There is no call for such a hypocritical, hyper-defensive reaction to my perfectly reasonable and well-intended and instructive questions--which you have yet to answer. Unwarranted and blustering indignation degrades rather than elevates the discussion.

 

 

First, I don't consider my solution to be universally guaranteed and immediate. Rather, I consider it the best of the set of imperfect solutions, and one considerably preferable to the counter-productive and freedom restricting option you favor.

 

Second, contrary to your bald assertions, my solution isn't a "pipe-dream," and it can and continues to work in our current economy as evinced by the fact that the vast majority of employed workers (I believe it is somewhere around 94%) receive wages that are higher than the minimum, and this in a way that doesn't exacerbate unemployment, among other unintended consequences, as would your freedom-restricting counter-solution.

 

Third, I have worked as a skilled laborer in unskilled labor jobs in the past, and I currently face the prospects of doing so again in the near future. So, I am not unsympathetic to the struggle. And, nothing I have said could in any reasonable sense be construed as suggesting, "Screw you, I got mine," or that I am somehow patting myself on the back. You are clearly projecting.

 

Fourth, my solution isn't just about expanding skill sets as employees. It is about increasing one's productivity and value in the market place. This can be done in ways other than doing "grunt work" (as you call it) for someone else.

 

Fifth, many of the laborers working at the unskilled jobs are illegal immigrants. There is a reason for this. Had you taken the time to perform the Econ 101 exercise I suggested, and had you gone a step further factoring in the economic effects of minimum wage on substitute labor (such as illegal labor), rather than spouting a stream of unwarranted and demonstrably false dismissals, you may have discovered that another unintended consequence of minimum wage laws besides restricting freedom and increasing unemployment, is that it encourages illegal immigration, thereby further displacing unskilled legal citizens and making matters worse for the demographic it was intended to help.

 

 

No...what we have is you constructing a straw man suited to your limited grasp of the issue (I have no idea where you came up with the so-called "classical economist" since economic development is heavily reliant on population growth). My solution made no mention of "dying off." In fact, it is a solution which has promoted the greatest expansion of wealth in world history, and this during a baby boom and population growth, for heaven sake.

 

 

In other words, you are all about unwittingly promoting unemployment, encouraging illegal immigration, stoking inflation, and restricting freedoms, among a number of unintended consequences which negatively impact more so the poor, all because you are indignant against and dismissive of freshman level economics. 

 

With compassion like that, who needs enemies.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You Wade, I am not sure why Nehor thinks you are being snide.

 

I think what you say is spot on. Just because one holds to an idea that is not ideal, I am not sure why they cling to it when another idea that works better comes along. MW just does not work.

 

It is interesting to note also during the 50th anniversary of the war on poverty (WOP) that the base line for being in poverty is still the same as it was in the 60's. That suggest that it is a colossal failure. Some might suggest that we just need to spend more. Well from the 60's to the 90's we spent or redistributed about 5 trillion dollars. From the 90's to now we redistributed 15 trillion on it. And the poverty rate remains the same or the percent that are in poverty is the same. So from the 90's til now we ramped up spending and nothing changed.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

 

 

According to William H. Chafe, if one used a relative standard for measuring poverty (a standard that took into account the rising standards of living rather than an absolute dollar figure) then 18% of families was living in poverty in 1968, not 13% as officially estimated at that time

The point here being that it was 13% in 1968

 

 

 

In November 2012 the U.S. Census Bureau said more than 16% of the population lived in poverty in the United States, including almost 20% of American children,^[7] up from 14.3% (approximately 43.6 million) in 2009 and to its highest level since 1993. In 2008, 13.2% (39.8 million) Americans lived in poverty.^[8] California has a poverty rate of 23.5%, the highest of any state in the country.^[9]

Here it seems it was 16% it went up from 1968. This does not bode well for the WOP.

Edited January 8, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And that is why you fail......the bolded part.

I was trying to use a nutral source so you would not claim that I was using a biased report. What did Wiki say that was false? If you can't refute it I will take that that my argument has won and you were simply wrong in what you stated. Not that I want to be right but I think I have made my point.

 

I also get what you would say. I scoff at Wikipeadia plenty but like I said it is a some what neutral place. And at the very least cannot be considered right leaning.

Edited January 8, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[The Nehor]

I was trying to use a nutral source so you would not claim that I was using a biased report. What did Wiki say that was false? If you can't refute it I will take that that my argument has won and you were simply wrong in what you stated.

It did not say anything false. It was just a simplification (i.e. Wikipedia).

You can declare yourself the winner at any point you like. I can't stop you. I will probably laugh at you but I cannot stop you.

[Ahab]

It doesnt take a rocket scientist (or some other type of super smart person) to figure out how to win the war on poverty. The excess of the rich should simply be given to the poor, preferrably through free will offerings, and when the rich dont give enough to the poor, more should be taken from them. To the victor go the spoils! The rich have been rich long enough!

[thesometimesaint]

When the WOP was declared the national poverty rate was 22% now it is around 12%. Also if SS were excluded from income measurement the rate among the elderly would be 44% instead of the current rate of 9%.

[bluebell]

It doesnt take a rocket scientist (or some other type of super smart person) to figure out how to win the war on poverty. The excess of the rich should simply be given to the poor, preferrably through free will offerings, and when the rich dont give enough to the poor, more should be taken from them. To the victor go the spoils! The rich have been rich long enough!

 

If people know that anything they earn will be given away (by force if necessary), then pretty soon people will simply stop earning it.  

[thesometimesaint]

It doesnt take a rocket scientist (or some other type of super smart person) to figure out how to win the war on poverty. The excess of the rich should simply be given to the poor, preferrably through free will offerings, and when the rich dont give enough to the poor, more should be taken from them. To the victor go the spoils! The rich have been rich long enough!

 

No government can long exist without an active stream of money through taxes. In fact our "Divinely Inspired" Constitution requires it.

[Duncan]

It doesnt take a rocket scientist (or some other type of super smart person) to figure out how to win the war on poverty. The excess of the rich should simply be given to the poor, preferrably through free will offerings, and when the rich dont give enough to the poor, more should be taken from them. To the victor go the spoils! The rich have been rich long enough!

 

 

prior to my mission I was in a little business of residential window washing, horrid job, but all we did was wash the windows of the wealthy and so i felt like a leech but hey, I got paid to sooth my savage soul

 

so, rather then nick from the rich why not work for them and get your money legitamately?

Edited January 8, 2014 by Duncan

[thesometimesaint]

If people know that anything they earn will be given away (by force if necessary), then pretty soon people will simply stop earning it.  

 

As a citizen of this country you volunteered to pay taxes, by force, if necessary.

[Calm]

As a citizen of this country you volunteered to pay taxes, by force, if necessary.

If you are a citizen by birth, did you actually volunteer or are you just shoehorned into that position?  It is not that easy to become a citizen of another country so to just say one has chosen to be a citizen here because they haven't moved elsewhere is a fallacy, imo.  They may not have a choice in moving elsewhere so therefore have no choice but to stay here, pay taxes or go to jail (most people wouldn't see the options of doing something or going to jail as a choice even if it is, but it definitely doesn't qualify as volunteering if the rules were set up before one was born and one didn't have a chance to say yea or nay and vote with one's feet).

Edited January 8, 2014 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

As a citizen of this country you volunteered to pay taxes, by force, if necessary.

That doesn't really address what bluebell said: "If people know that anything they earn will be given away (by force if necessary), then pretty soon people will simply stop earning it."

 

Also, I see a distinction between taxation to run essential government services (public safety, national defense, highway system, etc.) and income redistribution, which is the antecedent of bluebell's comment. Go back and follow the thread, and you will see this is the case.

Edited January 8, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

If people know that anything they earn will be given away (by force if necessary), then pretty soon people will simply stop earning it.

 

If the poor don't save because it doesn't feel like it gets them ahead, why would the rich or middle class or poor work if it felt the same way to them?  One doesn't usually make sacrifices if it doesn't change one's life in some way.

[Ahab]

Thats a shame, because doing some kind of good work shouldnt be dependent on getting paid money for working, but maybe what we could do is take enough of it away that they would still need to work for a living.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

As a citizen of this country you volunteered to pay taxes, by force, if necessary.

There are 2 things that destroy freedom. Compulsion and ignorance.  "By force" is not volunteering in any sense.

Edited January 8, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It did not say anything false. It was just a simplification (i.e. Wikipedia).

You can declare yourself the winner at any point you like. I can't stop you. I will probably laugh at you but I cannot stop you.

You laugh at me anyway so what else is new?

 

I win!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

When the WOP was declared the national poverty rate was 22% now it is around 12%. Also if SS were excluded from income measurement the rate among the elderly would be 44% instead of the current rate of 9%.

Sorry but that is not true. It was not 22% The highest it could be considered was 18%. But if you calculated the rate the same across the board IE using the same methodology the rate hasn't change much. In fact it appears to have gone up. I am not going to get into a debate about "income measures" as a lot of stuff is left out that should be counted.

[Ahab]

prior to my mission I was in a little business of residential window washing, horrid job, but all we did was wash the windows of the wealthy and so i felt like a leech but hey, I got paid to sooth my savage soul

so, rather then nick from the rich why not work for them and get your money legitamately?

Are you a fan of Downton Abbey? Do you like the divisions we have in society?

This Earth was created for all of us and we all have equal rights to everything here, regardless of what the rich and powerful in this world would like you to believe.

But Im okay with washing someone elses windows if someone else washes mine too.

[The Nehor]

It doesnt take a rocket scientist (or some other type of super smart person) to figure out how to win the war on poverty. The excess of the rich should simply be given to the poor, preferrably through free will offerings, and when the rich dont give enough to the poor, more should be taken from them. To the victor go the spoils! The rich have been rich long enough!

Greetings Comrade. Yes we must eviscerate the bourgeoise. Destroy the proletariot. Viva la revolution!

[thesometimesaint]

If you are a citizen by birth, did you actually volunteer or are you just shoehorned into that position?  It is not that easy to become a citizen of another country so to just say one has chosen to be a citizen here because they haven't moved elsewhere is a fallacy, imo.  They may not have a choice in moving elsewhere so therefore have no choice but to stay here, pay taxes or go to jail (most people wouldn't see the options of doing something or going to jail as a choice even if it is, but it definitely doesn't qualify as volunteering if the rules were set up before one was born and one didn't have a chance to say yea or nay and vote with one's feet).

 

I'm a citizen by birth. Moreover I actually like the fact that my government makes rules and laws that allow me the freedom to act in concert with other citizens to do things like promote the general welfare and provide for the common defense. To even change those rules and laws when so desired. So I stay here by choice.

 

I'm not that far from the Mexican border, and can drive to the Canadian border in a little over a day and a half. Unfortunately they have taxes in both those countries too. I have enough assets to live pretty much where I want to. Though not necessarily in the style I want to live once I get there.

[thesometimesaint]

Sorry but that is not true. It was not 22% The highest it could be considered was 18%. But if you calculated the rate the same across the board IE using the same methodology the rate hasn't change much. In fact it appears to have gone up. I am not going to get into a debate about "income measures" as a lot of stuff is left out that should be counted.

 

Incorrect. SEE http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show

[Calm]

Thats a shame, because doing some kind of good work shouldnt be dependent on getting paid money for working, but maybe what we could do is take enough of it away that they would still need to work for a living.

So you would take away enough money so they cannot be in control of their own lives and make their own choices and instead force them to work or starve....and this is moral for what reason?