Mocking The Poor

[wenglund]

Henry Ford for all his talents didn't invent the automobile, or the assembly line, or mass production. He took those already existing ideas and applied them to, at the time, custom built automobiles. He offered enough wages that his average employee could afford what they built. Ford made a fortune doing it.

 

Don't you think hamburger flippers these days can afford plenty of hamburgers--particularly given that most of them are middle-class teens?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

If "trickle down economics", as described by the Chicago school of economic thinking, supposedly functions, with wealth creating colateral benefits, I see the same factors at work when income, through taxes, is redistributed.

 

Actually, in many respects it does the opposite. Government compelled redistribution of wealth creates "trickle down poverty." (If interested, see HERE)

 

But, I fear the thread may be perceived as veering too political (I hope not because this is important discussion that relates to religious economy), and so we will have to tread lightly. I shan't say much more.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

Don't you think hamburger flippers these days can afford plenty of hamburgers--particularly given that most of them are middle-class teens?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Actually they can't afford to eat at the places they flip those hamburgers at. Even McDonald's confirms it.

http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/2013/12/24/mcdonalds-advises-their-employees-to-not-eat-at-mcdonalds/

 

Most hamburger flippers are low wage adults with children. http://www.epi.org/publication/wage-workers-older-88-percent-workers-benefit/

[wenglund]

Actually they can't afford to eat at the places they flip those hamburgers at. Even McDonald's confirms it.

http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/2013/12/24/mcdonalds-advises-their-employees-to-not-eat-at-mcdonalds/

 

 

I loved the play on the word "afford." By this standard, even the richest Americans couldn't afford to eat at McDonald. Equality at last. LOL

 

Most hamburger flippers are low wage adults with children. http://www.epi.org/publication/wage-workers-older-88-percent-workers-benefit/

 

Interesting spin and flawed extrapolation. The slight of hand by the EPI is that they are including in the mix workers not currently making minimum wage, but who WOULD BE affected by RAISING the minimum wage to a certain level in THE FUTURE. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the majority of people CURRENTLY making minimum wage and below, are under the age of 25, the vast percentage of which are teenagers. (See HERE and HERE)

 

What the EPI doesn't mention is that the people above the current MW that would be effected by a sizable increase, the effect may not be positive. For one, it may wipe out past advancements and move affected groups back to entry-level, and put them at risk for displacement by younger and less expensive workers (factoring in benefits, etc.).

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

I loved the play on the word "afford." By this standard, even the richest Americans couldn't afford to eat at McDonald. Equality at last. LOL

 

 

Interesting spin and flawed extrapolation. The slight of hand by the EPI is that they are including in the mix workers not currently making minimum wage, but who WOULD BE affected by RAISING the minimum wage to a certain level in THE FUTURE. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the majority of people CURRENTLY making minimum wage and below, are under the age of 25, the vast percentage of which are teenagers. (See HERE and HERE)

 

What the EPI doesn't mention is that the people above the current MW that would be effected by a sizable increase, the effect may not be positive. For one, it may wipe out past advancements and move affected groups back to entry-level, and put them at risk for displacement by younger and less expensive workers (factoring in benefits, etc.).

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

The richest, and middle class Americans can afford to eat at McDonald's. Whether they should do so is another question.

 

Raising the MW would allow burger flippers to buy the burgers they make. Even if eating them is not a good idea.

 

You keep repeating the same tired old claims about the MW. It is not true that the vast majority of MW workers are teenagers.

 

There has never been once in US history where a raise in the minimum wage has displaced older workers for younger workers.

[why me]

There is a problem with this thread. Although many of you may not realize this but this thread is centered on the anglo-saxon model of capitalism. Such an ideology is dominating the way people are thinking about economics and poverty. I know that this may be difficult to believe but before the fall of the soviet union, the world was shaped by many types of capitalisms, each with its particular form of values. For example, the nordic welfare model, centered in the north of europe. These countries had a particular type of capitalism where cooperative values were the norm. Then we have the welfare states of europe, each with their own particular form of capitalisms. Then we had the capitalisms that were formed in asia, mainly in japan.

 

So, in the past we had many forms of capitalisms. Now, these capitalisms have disappeared. We now have one form of capitalism that is dominating the way people view life: the anglo-saxon model. I see the values of this capitalism in many of the posts on this thread. It is very American centered in its values and attitudes when it comes to the poor and economics. I think that we need to see the ideology that frames our way of thinking and maybe attach ourselves to a different way of viewing the world. We need to take a step outside our comfort zones and see the world anew.

Edited January 10, 2014 by why me

[Ahab]

You said that if the rich did not want to give up their excess, we should make them.

Isn't that the definition of 'force'?

Besides that issue though, your proposals have some serious flaws, which is what Cal and I (and others) have been trying to show you.

What would actually happen if such laws were passed, is that the rich would take their assets and leave the country. Things would then get worse, not better.

Also, these laws would be themselves unrighteous because they ignore the fact that poor people can also be greedy. They make the rich a special class of citizens and penalize them for 'greed' while ignoring 'greed' in all other groups of people.

And, such laws would require the government to make new agencies in charge of deciding who is actually being greedy. Moralilty police forces are always a disaster. It's too easy for them to abuse their power. Greed is subjective.

And finally, if the point of 'greed' laws is to make a more righteous society, would they even work? Is someone who is on Medicaid and get's free medical care being greedy when they refuse to book an appointment with a primary care physician because going to the ER is just so much easier, even though it costs the tax payers a lot more money (I have family in the health care field and they deal with this A LOT). Probably, but our country is incapable of stopping them right now from doing that (even though it can be considered medicaid fraud). Would new laws against greed change this practice? No.

You can't force people to be righteous, so any laws enacted for the purpose of increasing righteousness are doomed to fail.

We enforce righteous laws often in America. Is your main argument that it would be difficult to enforce laws against greed, so because it is difficult we should not do it?

I don't know about you, but a millionaire or billionaire who doesnt give someone who is starving some food or some money to buy food is a pretty big deal in my book, so big that it should be considered a crime that comes with a pretty big penalty. But maybe what's worse is a person who doesnt think that should be on the books as a crime and just thinks it would be nice tif that rich person would just choose to be charitable and it's not a crime if the rich person doesnt choose to be nice.

At some point we should become angry when people dont choose to be righteous instead of just tolerating it in the world we live in. You seem to be able to see that kind of selfish greed and then just look away instead of trying to do something to stop it. I think by now you know I dont feel the same way.

[MorningStar]

This conversation is silly.  Taxes are not charity.  They are not giving by choice.  They are given by law or you have to deal with the consequences.

[thesometimesaint]

We enforce righteous laws often in America. Is your main argument that it would be difficult to enforce laws against greed, so because it is difficult we should not do it?

I don't know about you, but a millionaire or billionaire who doesnt give someone who is starving some food or some money to buy food is a pretty big deal in my book, so big that it should be considered a crime that comes with a pretty big penalty. But maybe what's worse is a person who doesnt think that should be on the books as a crime and just thinks it would be nice tif that rich person would just choose to be charitable and it's not a crime if the rich person doesnt choose to be nice.

At some point we should become angry when people dont choose to be righteous instead of just tolerating it in the world we live in. You seem to be able to see that kind of selfish greed and then just look away instead of trying to do something to stop it. I think by now you know I dont feel the same way.

 

I prefer a visit by the three Christmas ghosts.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

"I don't know about you, but a millionaire or billionaire who doesnt give someone who is starving some food or some money to buy food is a pretty big deal in my book, so big that it should be considered a crime that comes with a pretty big penalty."

 

 

It does- but it is not government's job to meet out the punishment. Property rights and rights over what you earn of your own industry are rights that should not be infringed upon- those who use them for selfish purposes will be judged by the great Judge. It is not your job to tell them what they should do with it.

[thesometimesaint]

This conversation is silly.  Taxes are not charity.  They are not giving by choice.  They are given by law or you have to deal with the consequences.

 

That is the case with any law. IE; I don't see where God gave the Hebrews at Mount Sinai a choice without consequences.

[Ahab]

Actually when it comes to tax laws if you choose not to follow them and are caught you are forced to comply by having your money taken. In some cases you get to go to prison too. You're splitting hairs. You can of course choose to break the law.

You can't make a law against an impulse. Why not make good laws against lust or avarice or jealousy?

I agree with you that our system is not working particularly well now but you seem to want to equalize wealth using a Procrustean bed. That will be the end of capitalism and since you can't legislate Consecration into being you are going to have to replace it with something else.....probably some version of communism.

I would appreciate it if you would apply all of yor intellect to my proposition. I realize we would need to be specific when defining a specific act of greed as a crime. Try thinking about one of the greatest acts of greed that is now allowed on this planet and then imagine if that act of greed was a crime punishable by a very big monetary penalty which would be used to try to offset that crime. Im sure you could come up with some good examples if you gave it some serious and sober consideration. And please feel free to express your marvelous sense of humor as you share the best ideas you come up with.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Forcing the rich to "pay their fair share" to "help those who are starving" does not address the issue of the heart- and will just build resentment and rebellion in those forced to do it. Forced charity will not make society better.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The richest, and middle class Americans can afford to eat at McDonald's. Whether they should do so is another question.

 

Raising the MW would allow burger flippers to buy the burgers they make. Even if eating them is not a good idea.

 

You keep repeating the same tired old claims about the MW. It is not true that the vast majority of MW workers are teenagers.

 

There has never been once in US history where a raise in the minimum wage has displaced older workers for younger workers.

Sorry leaving spectate mode, but you were the very one complaining in this thread the reason the poor were fat was because all they could afford was McDonalds. Now you are saying they cannot even afford McDonalds. Ugh. I like you Saint I do but sometimes your arguments just don't make a bit of sense.

 

Entering spectate mode.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[thesometimesaint]

It does- but it is not government's job to meet out the punishment. Property rights and rights over what you earn of your own industry are rights that should not be infringed upon- those who use them for selfish purposes will be judged by the great Judge. It is not your job to tell them what they should do with it.

 

It is the government's job to provide by law for the collection of taxes, and punishing violators of those laws.

[Ahab]

This conversation is silly. Taxes are not charity. They are not giving by choice. They are given by law or you have to deal with the consequences.

A charitable act involves acting in the best interest of all who are involved, rather than the interest of the few or just one. And yes it can involve taking something something away from the few or the one while distributing it more equally among all.

[why me]

Since people have ignored my beginning post on this thread I will post this for discussion. Notice where the anglo-saxon model is attached to poverty.

 

and Seeleib-Kaiser 2011).^[41]

Esping-Andersen (1990) constructed the welfare regime typology in acknowledgment of the ideational importance and power of the three dominant political movements of the long 20th century in Western Europe and North America; namely, Social Democracy, Christian Democracy (conservatism) and Liberalism (Stephens 1979; Korpi 1983; Van Kersbergen 1995; Ferragina and Seeleib-Kaiser 2011; Vrooman 2012).

1. The ideal social-democratic welfare state is based on the principle of universalism, granting access to benefits and services based on citizenship. Such a welfare state is said to provide a relatively high degree of autonomy, limiting the reliance of family and market (Ferragina and Seeleib-Kaiser 2011).^[42] In this context, social policies are perceived as 'politics against the market' (Esping-Andersen 1985).
2. Christian-democratic welfare states are based on the principle of subsidiarity and the dominance of social insurance schemes, offering a medium level of decommodification and permitting a high degree of social stratification.
3. The liberal regime is based on market dominance and private provision; ideally, the state only interferes to ameliorate poverty and provide for basic needs, largely on a means-tested basis. Hence, the decommodification potential of state benefits is assumed to be low and social stratification high (Ferragina and Seeleib-Kaiser 2011).^[42]

Based on the decommodification index, Esping-Andersen divided 18 OECD countries into the following groups (Esping-Andersen 1990: 71):

1. Social Democratic: Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden
2. Christian Democratic: Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Spain and Italy;
3. Liberal: Australia, Canada, Japan, Switzerland and the US;
4. Not clearly classified: Ireland, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

 

Please check out the link and see the chart. The anglosaxon model is the worst when dealing with poverty.

 

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

 

From the link:

 

Effects on poverty

Main article: Welfare's effect on poverty

Empirical evidence suggests that taxes and transfers considerably reduce poverty in most countries, whose welfare states commonly constitute at least a fifth of GDP.^[46][47] Most "welfare states" have considerably lower poverty rates than they had before the implementation of welfare programs.

Edited January 10, 2014 by why me

[BookofMormonLuvr]

It is the government's job to provide by law for the collection of taxes, and punishing violators of those laws.

 

Tell me... what is the overall view of taxes in the scriptures (esp. the Book of Mormon)?

[The Nehor]

 

Tell me... what is the overall view of taxes in the scriptures (esp. the Book of Mormon)?

 

In the Book of Mormon taxing people so leaders and their friends/cronies can glut themselves = bad.

 

In the Old Testament forced government work projects so you can build youself an impressive house may result in rebellion and divide the kingdom.

 

In the New Testament "render unto Caesar".

 

That's about it.

[thesometimesaint]

Sorry leaving spectate mode, but you were the very one complaining in this thread the reason the poor were fat was because all they could afford was McDonalds. Now you are saying they cannot even afford McDonalds. Ugh. I like you Saint I do but sometimes your arguments just don't make a bit of sense.

 

Entering spectate mode.

 

I always appreciate your input even on those rare occasions we disagree. Some poor are fat and some are skinny for complex sets of reasons. No one is disputing that an occasional fast food meal automatically transfers into good or ill health. Just as no one seriously disputes that a constant diet of fast food isn't good for you. My main concern is that it is always high priced for the nutritional buck. High is salt, sugar, and fat. Low in complex carbohydrates, proteins, vitamins, and minerals our bodies need to stay healthy.

 

That $5 burger, fries, and a drink diet carried out over a month is some $450 just for one person. So if you are poor you simply can't afford that level of expense beyond the very rare treat. Fast food workers are some of the worst paid workers in America. Thus even McDonald's tells its own employees not to eat the stuff.

[thesometimesaint]

 

Tell me... what is the overall view of taxes in the scriptures (esp. the Book of Mormon)?

 

That overall paying taxes is a responsibility of every citizen. That governments are responsible for how they spend those taxes.

[The Nehor]

I would appreciate it if you would apply all of yor intellect to my proposition. I realize we would need to be specific when defining a specific act of greed as a crime. Try thinking about one of the greatest acts of greed that is now allowed on this planet and then imagine if that act of greed was a crime punishable by a very big monetary penalty which would be used to try to offset that crime. Im sure you could come up with some good examples if you gave it some serious and sober consideration. And please feel free to express your marvelous sense of humor as you share the best ideas you come up with.

 

I am not sympathetic to the project. I'm actually a conservative who believes that capitalism with government safety nets, checks, and support systems is as good as we are going to get short of actual consecration.

 

I don't want the rich to have their money forcibly extracted to move everyone to some base standard of living. I do want people to be able to eat and no one to have to work three 30 hour a week jobs to live and still have to pay for insurance.

 

I think the basic income concept may be one of the best ways to do this. Basically it involves every adult (rich or poor, industrious or lazy, smart or stupid) that has a pulse getting a cash transfer from the government. This is tax free income. I would set it at about 14-16k per person right now. Enough to survive on if you are VERY frugal. Then we eliminate all other forms of government welfare services (outside of possibly catastrophic health support). The savings in bureaucracy costs on all levels of government would be huge. This payout does not diminish if you make money in addition to it (as most everyone will).

 

Studies where the program have been tried show that the actual drop-off in work is minuscule except amongst new mothers. In fact in some test programs economic activity actually increased due to an increase in the startup of small businesses and an increase in people's buying power.

 

In the current political climate there is no way this is going to pass in the States.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I always appreciate your input even on those rare occasions we disagree. Some poor are fat and some are skinny for complex sets of reasons. No one is disputing that an occasional fast food meal automatically transfers into good or ill health. Just as no one seriously disputes that a constant diet of fast food isn't good for you. My main concern is that it is always high priced for the nutritional buck. High is salt, sugar, and fat. Low in complex carbohydrates, proteins, vitamins, and minerals our bodies need to stay healthy.

 

That $5 burger, fries, and a drink diet carried out over a month is some $450 just for one person. So if you are poor you simply can't afford that level of expense beyond the very rare treat. Fast food workers are some of the worst paid workers in America. Thus even McDonald's tells its own employees not to eat the stuff.

...

[MorningStar]

That is the case with any law. IE; I don't see where God gave the Hebrews at Mount Sinai a choice without consequences.

Charity is voluntarily.  Taxes are not voluntarily.  Charity is given with a cheerful heart.  Taxes are paid out of duty or simply taken out of our paychecks because we have no control over it.  When I purchase things from the store, I am forced to pay sales tax.  I don't get to ask for the amount to be removed. 

[wenglund]

The richest, and middle class Americans can afford to eat at McDonald's. Whether they should do so is another question.

 

Raising the MW would allow burger flippers to buy the burgers they make. Even if eating them is not a good idea.

 

Are you saying that employees making the current minimum wage ($7.65) and hour can't financially afford a $.99 burger?

What do you think the odds are that they could afford a far more expensive cell phone?

 

You keep repeating the same tired old claims about the MW. It is not true that the vast majority of MW workers are teenagers.

 

I didn't make that claim.  Instead, I have said, "most of them are middle-class teens." I also said, "the majority of people CURRENTLY making minimum wage and below, are under the age of 25, the vast percentage of which are teenagers." Note that the word "vast" is used in relation to MW workers under the age of 25, and not the entire population of MW workers. And, both of of my statement are supported by the cited Government statistics.

 

There has never been once in US history where a raise in the minimum wage has displaced older workers for younger workers.

 

I will have to research this further.  However, preliminary findings seem to be against me--at least regarding in more recent times. (See HERE and HERE)

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-