Mocking The Poor

[The Nehor]

Reagan was a specter from the gods, and with his legislation he granted himself (political) immortality.

 

I see what you did there.

 

 

He wasn't a dictator and he had to work with a Democrat controlled legislative branch.

 

I have done enough of what I call fixed base optimization to conclude the Laffer curve to be a real and correct phenomena.

 

There is a really neat thing called a veto. You might have heard of it. Also, Reagan supported many of those increases. Not loudly because loudly supporting tax increases is never done on either side of the aisle.

 

The Laffer curve is a real thing. For those unfamiliar the Laffer curve postulates that at 0% and 100% tax rates the government gets no revenue (from the former because they didn't tax anyone and none from the latter because no one will participate in the economy if everything goes to the government). This is difficult to prove but it is a good starting point. It then theorizes that at some point between the two there is a point at which the maximum government revenue will be collected. In other words lowering taxes will increase economic activity. At some point the lowering of taxes will cut government revenue more then the increase in economic activity will compensate for. For example if you have the tax rate at 20% and then halve it to 10% this will increase the strength of the economy but it is unlikely to double the strength of the economy and compensate for the loss. So at some point those two forces balance out and revenue is maximized.

 

Note that the curve is used on brackets since we use progressive taxation. During World War II the highest tax bracket was paying a marginal tax rate of around 90%. At the start of  Reagan's presidency it was 70%. It was theorized that this was to the right of the curve (i.e. cutting taxes would increase government revenue) so it would be a good idea to cut taxes in the highest tax bracket. Arguments still go back and forth about where the Laffer curve maximizes revenue but most calculations place it in the 60-80% range for the highest tax bracket in the United States. The current tax rate on the highest bracket is 39.6% (up from the all-time low of 35% which was the lowest since World War II when it spiked to 90%). The Laffer curve suggests we should raise tax rates in that category. Decreasing the tax rate will almost assuredly not increase revenue. It is true that cuts in the past have seen an increase in revenue but this ignores the fact that we almost always see an increase in revenue because the economy is growing. It is impossible to completely account for external factors that also cause shifts in revenue. The increases in government revenue due to some tax decreases under Reagan were less then increases when the marginal tax rate was raised.

 

I want to be clear that I am talking about the marginal tax rate. Despite popular rumor you do not want to make less money so you fit in a lower tax bracket. Money is taxed the same at each tier. Everyone pays 10% of all their income in the first bracket, 15% of the next, etc.

 

The guy making a million and the guy making 40k both pay the same taxes on the first 40k they make.

 

Sorry, my Econ minor slipped out......

[Calm]

American Red Cross: The information presented above is outdated (as of October 2010), as Marsha J. Evans resigned her position as CEO of the American Red Cross in 2005. The current President and CEO of the American Red Cross (since 2008) is Gail J. McGovern, whose total yearly compensation for 2010 was about $1,037,000 (considerably higher than the $651,957 figure mentioned above) and for 2011 was about $561,000. Charity Navigator and Forbes both rate this organization's efficiency at 92%, much higher than the 39% figure claimed in the e-mail.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/charities.asp

[Calm]

The only information i could find on Goodwill was from 2011.

The CEO then was Jim Gibbons, who's compensation was 725,000. That seems excessive but i will be the first to admit that i certainly don't know everything there is to know about the way the company uses all it's money.

Goodwill: Goodwill Industries International is not a business that takes in donated items and resells them for a profit. It is a not-for-profit organization that provides job training, employment placement services and other community-based programs for people who have disabilities, lack education or job experience, or face employment challenges. Goodwill raises money for their programs through a chain of thrift stores which also operate as non-profits.

The CEO of Goodwill Industries International is not Mark Curran, nor does he make $2.3 million a year. The current President and CEO of Goodwill is Jim Gibbons, who in 2011 received a total reported compensation of $725,000.

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/charities.asp#IybfcpTlhU7I66Yc.99

So while they may be efficient in getting money back to their programs, still looks like high salaries for top guy. The difference is that they are taking in huge amounts of money so it is a low percentage of their cost.

The Internet is a great resource if you want to ensure most of your money gets to where it is supposed to, though you may have to shop around a bit for exactly what you want.

Edited January 7, 2014 by calmoriah

[bluebell]

 

 

I want to be clear that I am talking about the marginal tax rate. Despite popular rumor you do not want to make less money so you fit in a lower tax bracket. Money is taxed the same at each tier. Everyone pays 10% of all their income in the first bracket, 15% of the next, etc.

 

The guy making a million and the guy making 40k both pay the same taxes on the first 40k they make.

 

Sorry, my Econ minor slipped out......

 

Don't you sometimes want to be in a lower tax bracket though?

 

For example, my husband sometimes works a lot of overtime.  There is a point though, where the amount of taxes he's paying on the overtime pay is equal to or more than he's actually taking home.

 

At that point, he gets more money when he works less (he makes less gross, but more net, if that makes sense).

[The Nehor]

Don't you sometimes want to be in a lower tax bracket though?

 

For example, my husband sometimes works a lot of overtime.  There is a point though, where the amount of taxes he's paying on the overtime pay is equal to or more than he's actually taking home.

 

At that point, he gets more money when he works less (he makes less gross, but more net, if that makes sense).

 

Nope.

 

This is the misconception. If the increased income pushes you into the next tax bracket then the money that goes over into that bracket is the only income that is taxed at the higher rate. The rest of the money is still taxed at the lower rate. As gross income goes up net income goes up (though the speed at which it goes up decreases in each tax bracket).

 

A quick simplified example leaving out things like the standard deduction and Social Security and the like. Let's say there is a 10% tax rate up to $20k, a 15% tax rate up to 40k, a 20% tax up to 60k, and 25% over that.

 

You make $60,000.

 

10% on the first 20k = $2,000

15% on the second 20k = $3,000

20% on third 20k = $4,000

 

Your tax bill is $9,000 and you make $51,000 net.

 

Now let's say next year you make $500 more ($60,500) and are worried about the next tax bracket.

 

10% on the first 20k = $2,000

15% on the second 20k = $3,000

20% on third 20k = $4,000

25% on last $500 = $125

 

Your tax bill is $9,125 and you make $51,375 net.

 

Does that make sense?

 

You are always better off making more money. You may take home a lesser percent of some of the money you make but you will never get less net by getting more gross*.

 

* I should probably qualify that. There are some fringe cases where this can happen but they only happen if you are making very little money and are collecting tax credits (such as earned income). In those cases you might lose a small amount of money for making more but we are talking less then $50 and probably less then $20. For everyone else get the money.

Edited January 8, 2014 by The Nehor

[Calm]

Don't you sometimes want to be in a lower tax bracket though?

 

For example, my husband sometimes works a lot of overtime.  There is a point though, where the amount of taxes he's paying on the overtime pay is equal to or more than he's actually taking home.

 

At that point, he gets more money when he works less (he makes less gross, but more net, if that makes sense).

what about nontaxes, such as benefits and fees, Nehor? Such as welfare.. I had a friend who claimed her additional $200 income per month pushed her out of the welfare bracket and her rent jumped from about $150 to $1000 (it was intended to get those not needing help to move out, definitely over market value).

[wenglund]

There is no magic number. It varies by location and the cost of living there.

What scares me are the people that want to abolish the minimum wage. The only reason anyone would want to abolish it is they want people to be paid less.

 

In my case, this is completely incorrect. The reason I, for one (I am not alone in this), want to abolish the minimum wage is for a variety of economic reasons, not the least of which is that minimum wage laws have the unintended negative consequence of, among several things, increasing unemployment among the lowest wage earners. Currently, unemployment for that demographic is disproportionately higher than the general population, and with the prospect of raising the minimum wage, this could further exacerbate the problem. I happen to be of the mind that a low-paying job is far better than no job, and as such I view minimum wage laws as making matter worse, rather than better, for the very demographic it was intended to help.

 

I also believe there is far better and functional way to increase wages for the poor and unskilled laborers without restricting freedoms (as with minimum wage), and this is by increasing the value to the market of those workers--improving their skills and productivity, etc.

 

It worked for me (most of the jobs I had in my childhood and youth weren't covered under minimum wage at the time).

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[The Nehor]

what about nontaxes, such as benefits and fees, Nehor? Such as welfare.. I had a friend who claimed her additional $200 income per month pushed her out of the welfare bracket and her rent jumped from about $150 to $1000 (it was intended to get those not needing help to move out, definitely over market value).

 

It is true that some benefits have a cut-off. Lately there has been a move in a lot of governments to switch to a system where they phase out as income rises. This is true of most federal benefits and I was addressing only moving through federal tax brackets. State and local benefits may be cut off and some federal credits phase out. I am obviously not familiar with all of them. If you are receiving benefits definitely check the limits. For most taxpayers my statement holds. If you make more you get more. I have seen too many people refuse overtime or ask for a decrease in pay thinking they are going to save on taxes. It is just not true.

[The Nehor]

In my case, this is completely incorrect. The reason I, for one (I am not alone in this), want to abolish the minimum wage is for a variety of economic reasons, not the least of which is that minimum wage laws have the unintended negative consequence of, among several things, increasing unemployment among the lowest wage earners. Currently, unemployment for that demographic is disproportionately higher than the general population, and with the prospect of raising the minimum wage, this could further exacerbate the problem. I happen to be of the mind that a low-paying job is far better than no job, and as such I view minimum wage laws as making matter worse, rather than better, for the very demographic it was intended to help.

 

I don't see the advantage. The employer can hire two workers instead of one? That doesn't help if neither of them can really afford to live on what they make. It will lead to a sharp spike in the number of welfare recipients which (as I said before) is basically the employer getting subsidized. He hires two desperate workers for what he should be paying one and the government is keeping them alive for him. I think it is more reasonable to pay one the minimum wage. At least the employer is contributing more towards the services he is buying instead of having to indirectly rely on government welfare to subsidize his business.

 

I am worried that if the minimum wage is abolished what happens to the poor sod who is making $2 an hour. We have a social safety net designed to support people and get them back to work but he is working. He is going to need large benefits in perpetuity with that job.

[Mark Beesley]

I worked a bit with the homeless shelter and the salvation army in Billings MT.  Without exception, they always counseled not to give 'beggars' money.  They instructed to provide food if possible, and to provide a list of services that were available to the homeless and downtrodden in the city.  They suggested that if someone really wanted to help the poor, they would volunteer with those services, since they actually tried to help people.

 

Money never really helped them, but it was the easiest thing to do so a lot of people did it, just so they didn't feel guilty.  At that point, people aren't serving the poor, they are just serving themselves.

 

So, i think that it is often necessary to without monetary aid, and attempt to give different kinds of aid instead.  I think that giving money just to fulfill a sense of obligation probably causes more harm than good.

 

Oh great!  So now when I give a buck to the poor schmuck on the corner I'm just showing what a selfish jerk I am.  And here I thought that King Benjamin said we should give freely without regard for the consequences of that giving.  I just gotta ask myself how those friggin' lillies get so beautifully adorned, ya know, the ones that don't work but just stand around all day.

 

Of course, silly me, I never thought to go to the salvation army or the local homeless shelter for spiritual guidance.

[wenglund]

I don't see the advantage. The employer can hire two workers instead of one? That doesn't help if neither of them can really afford to live on what they make. It will lead to a sharp spike in the number of welfare recipients which (as I said before) is basically the employer getting subsidized. He hires two desperate workers for what he should be paying one and the government is keeping them alive for him. I think it is more reasonable to pay one the minimum wage. At least the employer is contributing more towards the services he is buying instead of having to indirectly rely on government welfare to subsidize his business.

 

 

Apart from being almost entirely unresponsive to my comments, there is so much confusion and misunderstanding and lack of understanding in this paragraph of yours that it is difficult to know where to start to unravel it.

 

Perhaps it may help to begin by briefly considering how wages tend to be established in free market systems, or at least in the large portion of the labor market in the U.S. where wages are trading above the legal minimum. Do you have a clue? (Hint: it has nothing to do with central planners making politically expedient decisions.)

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 8, 2014 by wenglund

[The Nehor]

Oh great!  So now when I give a buck to the poor schmuck on the corner I'm just showing what a selfish jerk I am.  And here I thought that King Benjamin said we should give freely without regard for the consequences of that giving.  I just gotta ask myself how those friggin' lillies get so beautifully adorned, ya know, the ones that don't work but just stand around all day.

 

Of course, silly me, I never thought to go to the salvation army or the local homeless shelter for spiritual guidance.

 

C.S. Lewis was once told to stop giving money to homeless people because they are probably just going to get something to drink. His response was that if he kept it he would probably waste it on drink. A homeless guy taking a little bit of pleasure (even sinful pleasure) from me handing them a couple of bucks is probably a better use of it then I would get. That said when I am on foot in an area where I expect to encounter people asking for help I buy a bunch of king-sized Snickers bars. Because really......who doesn't love a Snickers bar?

[The Nehor]

Apart from being almost entirely unresponsive to my comments, there is so much confusion and misunderstanding and lack of understanding in this paragraph of yours that it is difficult to know where to start to unravel it.

 

Perhaps it may help to begin by briefly considering how wages tend to be established in free market systems, or at least in the large portion of the labor market in the U.S. where wages are trading above the legal minimum. Do you have a clue? (Hint: it has nothing to do with central planners making politically expedient decisions.)

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I am honestly not sure you understood it then.

 

Wages are ideally established in a back and forth manner between employer and employee. I get to do that. Most people don't. I am lucky to be well educated and skilled in a field that is not oversaturated with qualified applicants in this area. Right now we have a labor surplus. It is an employer's market. They do not have to pay what the worker would be worth if there was not a labor surplus. Classical economists would point out that the problem should sort itself out when the surplus population dies off and wages rise again. We are a little more humane then that.

 

Others do not get to negotiate. It is "take it or leave it". If we remove the minimum wage we lose part of the social contract. The contract between employer and employee is that the employer will give the employee a fair wage (usually meaning enough to live on in the case of full-time work) and the employee works to help the employer earn money (more then his wages). In a market with no minimum wage and an excess supply of labor you get depression-era wages where everyone in the family works all day so they can eat or they do not work at all. It's the economically sound choice for the employer. The employer is no longer a job creator. He is a job exploiter. He is using his capital to extort work at less then its fair value. Now you can rightly argue that the employee can go elsewhere....but what if everyone is doing the same thing? You basically reinstate feudalism without the promise of physical protection and security. If the serf is not working out or gets sick you kick them to the curb and get another one from the large available pool. You have a lot of angry impoverished people with no security and no future and a continually growing wealth gap. All that adds up (possible in a democracy where they have a majority) them voting themselves new protections and benefits or leads to a bloody revolution, probably along extreme socialist or communist lines. I don't want either but desperate people don't care about economic (or political) freedom. They want food, a decent home, and a future.

 

To be clear I do not see this scenario playing out right now. The economy is not that bad right now. I definitely do not want to get ready by removing the minimum wage so that if things do fall apart this scenario is likely to play out.

[Calm]

Oh great!  So now when I give a buck to the poor schmuck on the corner I'm just showing what a selfish jerk I am.  And here I thought that King Benjamin said we should give freely without regard for the consequences of that giving.  I just gotta ask myself how those friggin' lillies get so beautifully adorned, ya know, the ones that don't work but just stand around all day.

 

Of course, silly me, I never thought to go to the salvation army or the local homeless shelter for spiritual guidance.

Somehow I don't think King Ben was talking about the same people Blue was...

 

 I think that giving money just to fulfill a sense of obligation probably causes more harm than good.

 

Which would be better in your view?  Giving caring about the person you give it to enough to find out what they really need or giving it without caring enough about the person to find out what they really need but only giving so you don't feel bad?

 

It may help you spiritually to give without concern, but does it help the recipient?  Wouldn't it be better to help two people with your charity instead of just one?

Edited January 8, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Because really......who doesn't love a Snickers bar?

I don't actually...but if I'm really hungry it is very satisfying...

 

And I think that's a brilliant idea...

Edited January 8, 2014 by calmoriah

[bluebell]

Oh great!  So now when I give a buck to the poor schmuck on the corner I'm just showing what a selfish jerk I am.  And here I thought that King Benjamin said we should give freely without regard for the consequences of that giving.  I just gotta ask myself how those friggin' lillies get so beautifully adorned, ya know, the ones that don't work but just stand around all day.

 

Of course, silly me, I never thought to go to the salvation army or the local homeless shelter for spiritual guidance.

 

There's no need to feel defensive Mark.  Sometimes when we just hand people money instead of taking the time to try to discover what will really help them, we are doing the best we can, even if it's not always what's best for the person we are giving it too.

 

As long as we seek to be guided by the Spirit, we won't do to much damage.  

[wenglund]

I am honestly not sure you understood it then.

 

Wages are ideally established in a back and forth manner between employer and employee. I get to do that. Most people don't. I am lucky to be well educated and skilled in a field that is not oversaturated with qualified applicants in this area. Right now we have a labor surplus. It is an employer's market. They do not have to pay what the worker would be worth if there was not a labor surplus. Classical economists would point out that the problem should sort itself out when the surplus population dies off and wages rise again. We are a little more humane then that.

 

Others do not get to negotiate. It is "take it or leave it". If we remove the minimum wage we lose part of the social contract. The contract between employer and employee is that the employer will give the employee a fair wage (usually meaning enough to live on in the case of full-time work) and the employee works to help the employer earn money (more then his wages). In a market with no minimum wage and an excess supply of labor you get depression-era wages where everyone in the family works all day so they can eat or they do not work at all. It's the economically sound choice for the employer. The employer is no longer a job creator. He is a job exploiter. He is using his capital to extort work at less then its fair value. Now you can rightly argue that the employee can go elsewhere....but what if everyone is doing the same thing? You basically reinstate feudalism without the promise of physical protection and security. If the serf is not working out or gets sick you kick them to the curb and get another one from the large available pool. You have a lot of angry impoverished people with no security and no future and a continually growing wealth gap. All that adds up (possible in a democracy where they have a majority) them voting themselves new protections and benefits or leads to a bloody revolution, probably along extreme socialist or communist lines. I don't want either but desperate people don't care about economic (or political) freedom. They want food, a decent home, and a future.

 

To be clear I do not see this scenario playing out right now. The economy is not that bad right now. I definitely do not want to get ready by removing the minimum wage so that if things do fall apart this scenario is likely to play out.

 

You are only slightly correct. Employers are consumers looking to purchase labor, and employees are suppliers offering their labor services. In a free market, wages are like prices, and consist of points of voluntary exchange that, regardless of whether they are personally negotiated or not (most prices aren't personally negotiated), are a function of supply and demand, preferably and usually where both curves intersect (called equilibrium).  This is how things rationally work.

 

Besides trampling on personal freedoms, guess what happens when a third party, central planner, takes upon itself to compulsorily set wages and prices for both consumers and producers, whether for political expediency or otherwise?

 

Granted, extraordinary market conditions can cause high levels of unemployment, thereby driving down wages (by the way, this is no more exploitation than when a huge surplus of goods drives down the price of those goods and consumers avail themselves of the lower prices).

 

However, there are rational and irrational ways of addressing the surplus of labor (i.e. unemployment). By answering the question immediately above, you will be able figure out into which category minimum wage falls.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 8, 2014 by wenglund

[The Nehor]

You are only slightly correct. Employers are consumers looking to purchase labor, and employees are suppliers offering their labor services. In a free market, wages are like prices, and consist of points of voluntary exchange that, regardless of whether they are personally negotiated or not (most prices aren't personally negotiated), are a function of supply and demand, preferably and usually where both curves intersect (called equilibrium).  This is how things rationally work.

 

Besides trampling on personal freedoms, guess what happens when a third party, central planner, takes upon itself to set wages and prices for both consumers and producers, whether for political expediency or otherwise?

 

Granted, extraordinary market condition can cause high levels of unemployment, thereby driving down wages (by the way, this is no more exploitation than when a huge surplus of goods drives down the price of those goods and consumers avail themselves of the lower prices).

 

However, there are rational and irrational ways of addressing the surplus of labor (i.e. unemployment). By answering the question above, you will be able figure out into which category minimum wage falls.

 

When a third party steps in the results can be good or bad. I do not see intervention as inherently bad. I do not see a minimum wage as inherently bad.

 

No snark, if you think you have a better/more rational system to put in place to deal with a market with a surplus of labor that does not lead to exploitation and disposable employees I would love to hear it. I have heard a few ideas and even come up with one but all were inferior.

Edited January 8, 2014 by The Nehor

[MorningStar]

Now that we have established that we need to help people, I would like $100,000 please. 

[Calm]

Now that we have established that we need to help people, I would like $100,000 please. 

After I set aside the first $10,000 for toys, the next $100,000 I get when I go back to work will be yours.

[wenglund]

When a third party steps in the results can be good or bad. I do not see intervention as inherently bad. I do not see a minimum wage as inherently bad.

 

No snark, if you think you have a better/more rational system to put in place to deal with a market with a surplus of labor that does not lead to exploitation and disposable employees I would love to hear it. I have heard a few ideas and even come up with one but all were inferior.

 

First, let's test and see whether minimum wage is rational or irrational. Tell me, what results when the government sets wages for unskilled labor at levels above equilibrium--as is the case with minimum wage laws? Go ahead and diagram it out on a supply/demand graph. (Hint: It is similar to what happens when governments set mandatory price limits, or where businesses set prices above equilibrium.)

 

This is just the first test of many that doesn't bode well for your alleged favored encroachment on freedom.

 

As for my suggestion, I gave it several posts ago. The solution for low wages is to increase the market value of laborers. It worked for me and millions of other laborers--as evinced by the vast majority of people earning wages above the minimum. I would think that a system where people freely and rationally are made more wealthy and happy is far superior to a compulsory system where the poor are made worse off--good intention to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 8, 2014 by wenglund

[MorningStar]

After I set aside the first $10,000 for toys, the next $100,000 I get when I go back to work will be yours.

 

Awesome.  I'll show up at your door and sing something with an empty guitar case in front of me. 

[Yirgacheffe]

My steak was about 600 calories.  I cooked bacon for the salad, and then I sauteed the mushrooms in the bacon grease, but it wasn't enough bacon grease, so I added butter, and garlic, and green onion.  Oh yeah, I also added a bunch of crumbled blue cheese to the salad, olives, the bacon, and my rockin' vinaigrette has extra virgin olive oil, which has 119 calories in one tablespoon. 

 

I'm sure that meal must have been close to 1000 calories.  Then I woke up 2 pounds lighter.    And now I just ate 210 calories of macadamia nuts.

 

So which is more filling - 600 calories of steak or 600 calories of white bread?  And which is more affordable?  The stuff that leaves you still hungry is more affordable, which is why it's so easy to get fat when you are poor.  Not many people have the will power to be hungry all the time. 

 

Also, I don't really understand the poor people eating at McDonald's thing because I still think buying crappy food at the grocery store is cheaper.  Sometimes you can get a whole package of hot dogs for a dollar, which lasts for days vs. a 99 cent cheeseburger. 

Food deserts.

[The Nehor]

First, let's test and see whether minimum wage is rational or irrational. Tell me, what results when the government sets wages for unskilled labor at levels above equilibrium--as is the case with minimum wage laws? Go ahead and diagram it out on a supply/demand graph. (Hint: It is similar to what happens when governments set mandatory price limits, or where businesses set prices above equilibrium.)

 

This is just the first test of many that doesn't bode well for your alleged favored encroachment on freedom.

 

As for my suggestion, I gave it several posts ago. The solution for low wages is to increase the market value of laborers. It worked for me and millions of other laborers--as evinced by the vast majority of people earning wages above the minimum. I would think that a system where people freely and rationally are made more wealthy and happy is far superior to a compulsory system where the poor are made worse off--good intention to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Okay, not playing your silly and annoying little game where you pretend to be a brilliant economics professor because you took Microeconomics 101 as a required course or studied economics for five minutes on the internet and still remember the first thing you learned about perfect markets and ignored all the caveats and the hard stuff about why it rarely works that way in real life. Luckily I just find smug patronizing fake teaching questions that actually betray the questioner's vast ignorance amusing so my annoyance is counteracted by the fact that I now get to giggle at your laughable pretentiousness.

 

I admit your solution works.....for individuals. It will not work for everyone. The idea that everyone can improve their value will not work in our current economy. Maybe in another century technology will let us reach that point or we can reform society to where the grunt work is equally shared amongst all but right now everyone being highly skilled means some highly skilled people scrub toilets, clean hotel rooms, and inquire if you want fries with that. It's not a solution. It is at best a pipe dream that ignores economic reality and at worst it is a condescending "Screw you, I got mine" to those who are struggling while you pat yourself on the back for how brilliant you are to leave those losers in the dust.

 

We could also use your freshmen level graph as a guide to our actions and we are back to the classical economists: "Let the surplus population die off to increase the value of labor and restore equilibrium". Basically you have either a monstrous solution or no solution at all.

 

I'll stick with minimum wage unless we can find a way to make universal basic income or something else work. I do not think they work now and right now in our current social climate there is no way to implement them. I would rather ruin your perfect graph then live in a society where people can be expected to work 60 hours a week for $4/hour.

[Calm]

Awesome.  I'll show up at your door and sing something with an empty guitar case in front of me. 

With your voice, it would be worth it...that and you could stay and cook for me for a month or so...