NationStates Jolt Archive

Here is an email i recieved from the democratic party yesterday...

Dear Thomas,

It's been ten years since Congress last voted to raise the minimum wage.


Here are some simple facts that are hard to ignore:

Someone working full-time for the $5.15 federal minimum wage makes just $10,700 a year. A single mom with two kids who works full-time for the minimum wage is about $6,000 below the poverty line.
The federal minimum wage has been stuck at the same rate since 1997. Since then, Republican leaders have raised the salaries of Senators seven times. Salaries of lawmakers have gone up by $31,600 -- almost three times the entire yearly income of someone on minimum wage.
The real value of the minimum wage is more than $3.00 below what it was a generation ago.
The minimum wage is the lowest it has been in over 50 years relative to the average wage.
Raising the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour adds up to more than one year of groceries, over 9 months of rent, a year and a half of heat and electricity, or full tuition for a community college degree.
The world's richest and most powerful country must do better. Democrats are leading the way on making this simple, humane change that will affect millions of Americans.

They need your help to make this effort a success. Senator Kennedy's Fair Minimum Wage Act can pass this year, but only if people across the nation show they want change.

So far, almost 90,000 people across the country have signed on as citizen co-sponsors to this bill. Your name can put the number of Americans demanding a higher minimum wage over 100,000 -- and 100,000 Americans demanding specific legislation is something that even the most out of touch Republican leaders cannot ignore.

Please sign on as a citizen co-sponsor of Senator Kennedy's bill to increase the minimum wage. After you sign on, please forward this message to your personal email list and ask your friends and family to learn more about this vital issue and join us:

http://www.democrats.org/minimumwage

As Democrats, it's our responsibility to lead on this issue. If we don't, no one else will. Please be a part of it.

Thank you.

Governor Howard Dean, M.D.


I think that sounds like a grand Idea, even though big business will hate it. I like it because far too long politicians have been able to give themselves increases without even thinking about the american public. I mean they have increased their paychecks, why not help out the poverty stricken americans?

$10,700 isn't even enough to last six months, and there are a lot of people who work at minimum wage jobs for a living. If this passes, then good. But, sadly, I doubt it will.

Screw this minimum wage crap. We need a LIVING wage for all full time workers guaranteed worldwide.

Screw this minimum wage crap. We need a LIVING wage for all full time workers guaranteed worldwide.

True, but something like that is centuries off.

minimum wage goes up, prices go up. it sets itself to being about the same

minimum wage should not be at a national level, each state should have its own minimum wage. and it should be that states resposibility

Lies, all LIES! We all know there are no poor people in the United States.

minimum wage goes up, prices go up. it sets itself to being about the same

minimum wage should not be at a national level, each state should have its own minimum wage. and it should be that states resposibility

Not again with "States' Rights" bullshit...

I don't think the US federal government should set a minimum wage at all. Local governments in the USA are already free to set the minimum wage at whatever level they please. The federal government should not set price ceilings or price floors for labour, agricultural goods, housing, prescription drugs or any other popular cause of the day.

There goes the dollar menu at McDonalds. Now it will be a $2 menu. What a benefit that will be for all the people that just had their paychecks devalued.

minimum wage goes up, prices go up. it sets itself to being about the same

minimum wage should not be at a national level, each state should have its own minimum wage. and it should be that states resposibility
yep. and then the people who make a little more than min. wage who are doing better now will do worse after since they won't get a raise, and will still have to pay more for the same stuff they used to be able to afford.

There goes the dollar menu at McDonalds. Now it will be a $2 menu. What a benefit that will be for all the people that just had their paychecks devalued.

What do you mean?

Wages don't have anything to do with prices or cost of living do they. :eek:

I don't think the US federal government should set a minimum wage at all. Local governments in the USA are already free to set the minimum wage at whatever level they please. The federal government should not set price ceilings or price floors for labour, agricultural goods, housing, prescription drugs or any other popular cause of the day.


well without a national min. wage what makes you think that some place like...ohio that used to have a large industry site wouldn't lower the min wage to say...2.25 an hr, to get more business to come there..sure there is more jobs, but whats a job worth if you are not making any money?

The tradeoff of raising minimum wage is that companies will be less likely to hire as many new workers which will raise unemployment and defeat the purpose of raising it, as it only applies to new workers. With a lower minimum wage, there will be more entry level jobs that may not have been created otherwise, and wages can be increased over time.
So it just depends on whether we would rather have more people who are unproductive, or have a smaller starting wage.

Not again with "States' Rights" bullshit...

Well, $7.15 in Connecticut is a lot different than $7.15 in Idaho. I agree with having a Federal minimum-minimum wage, but I certainly encourage states to raise it, depending on the conditions with that state.

That being said, here in Michigan minimum wage is going to $6.85 in October, and will be at $7.50 in a couple of years. Living on $5.15 is not impossible, just extremely difficult, far more difficult than it should be.

True, but something like that is centuries off.

with that attitude it is.

What do you mean?

Wages don't have anything to do with prices or cost of living do they. :eek:

In the Capitalist system, actually, yes. With wage inflation, product prices have the tendency to go up. This is because in a market-controlled economy, there are no fixed prices for "base goods", such as food and raw materials. The price of those goods will go up to compensate for inflated wages.

Now, it doesn't happen with everything, nor is the inflation as rapid (or rampant) as some would have you think. A raise in the minimum wage would help, yes, but only temporarily.

well without a national min. wage what makes you think that some place like...ohio that used to have a large industry site wouldn't lower the min wage to say...2.25 an hr, to get more business to come there..sure there is more jobs, but whats a job worth if you are not making any money?

if people are willing to work for that amount, then i guess they deserve to work for that amount. i dont know about your area, but there are very few jobs here that actually pay minimum wage.

In the Capitalist system, actually, yes. With wage inflation, product prices have the tendency to go up. This is because in a market-controlled economy, there are no fixed prices for "base goods", such as food and raw materials. The price of those goods will go up to compensate for inflated wages.

Now, it doesn't happen with everything, nor is the inflation as rapid (or rampant) as some would have you think. A raise in the minimum wage would help, yes, but only temporarily.

(You missed the sarcasm eek smilie!)

with that attitude it is.

True. But then, there are hardly enough people in my own country to start a revolution of any sort.

Yes, it's time for the minimum wage to match the living wage around here. Ever read the book "Nickel and Dimed"? It tells it all...what it's REALLY like to try to live on minimum wage jobs, even two and three at a time. I see it all the time with my clients. So sad and frustrating. Heck, I can't get by on my own salary! Thank goodness my parents don't mind continuing to provide room and board for their 24 year old.

*thanks mom and dad*

(You missed the sarcasm eek smilie!)

Ehh. My point still stands. :p

if people are willing to work for that amount, then i guess they deserve to work for that amount.

Hmmm.

Starve or be forced to work for a pittance.

Hmmm.

Yes, it's time for the minimum wage to match the living wage around here. Ever read the book "Nickel and Dimed"? It tells it all...what it's REALLY like to try to live on minimum wage jobs, even two and three at a time. I see it all the time with my clients. So sad and frustrating. Heck, I can't get by on my own salary! Thank goodness my parents don't mind continuing to provide room and board for their 24 year old.

*thanks mom and dad*

Now comes the eternal question, "What is a "Living Wage" and what is it based on?

Cable TV?
Cell phone/quality of landline service?
How many vehicles?
New/Used
Type of home?
Rent/own?
Food quality?
Clothing?
Etc.

Yes, it's time for the minimum wage to match the living wage around here. Ever read the book "Nickel and Dimed"? It tells it all...what it's REALLY like to try to live on minimum wage jobs, even two and three at a time. I see it all the time with my clients. So sad and frustrating. Heck, I can't get by on my own salary! Thank goodness my parents don't mind continuing to provide room and board for their 24 year old.

*thanks mom and dad*

My mom works 2 jobs at slightly over minimum wage, and she's struggling. She works at a gas station and a tax service agency. I help when I can, but I'm not exactly wealthy myself, being a student and all. I felt really bad when I gave my 10 year old little brother a $20 for his birthday, and he tried to stealthily give it to our mom, saying that she needed it a lot more than him.

Now comes the eternal question, "What is a "Living Wage" and what is it based on?

Cable TV?
Cell phone/quality of landline service?
How many vehicles?
New/Used
Type of home?
Rent/own?
Food quality?
Clothing?
Etc.

How about "being able to buy enough food to actually get through each month without going hungry, enough money to pay the utilities, and enough money to put your kids through school, while also being able to spend leftover money on personal things"?

How about "being able to buy enough food to actually get through each month without going hungry, enough money to pay the utilities, and enough money to put your kids through school, while also being able to spend leftover money on personal things"?
ah, but my kids' food costs more, so would I start out at a higher wage than others? and if not, how am I supposed to raise my kids on such little money?

When I was in college minimum wage was $1.65 and gasoline was .26. That's 6.35 gallons of gas for each hour worked. Right now gas here is $2.43X6.35=$15.43. Since Reagan broke the unions and refused to raise min. wage, the rich have gotten richer and everyone else has lost.

A lot of this comes from supply and demand. We have imported around 6 million minimum workers in order to drive down wages. Yet someone with a college degree has trouble coming in and competing with the top earners.

well im a republican that disagrees with both republican and democrats on economic issues because they dont look at the big picture and long term effects.

Im fine with a gradual increase in minimum wage in the US, but if the minimum wage was increased by 40% overnight the effect would be inflation as Kecibukia pointed out with the example of the Mcdonald's dollar menu. All businesses will raise the cost of products to pay for this 40% increase on all minimum wage workers. Businesses that supply needed products like Groceries could take advantage of the lower class getting more income from this rapid increase.

I also oppose a permanent tax cut. Think of tax cuts like a Christmas Bonus for companies. When Businesses expect to get the bonus, as many people see Christmas bonuses, the Business will not use it responsibly, but become dependant on the cut and expect it. Making a Tax Cut here and there to make business incentives and thus to expand is good but permanent tax cuts are bad.:headbang: its sad that in America we really only have 2 choices for the people that we elect:headbang:

ah, but my kids' food costs more, so would I start out at a higher wage than others? and if not, how am I supposed to raise my kids on such little money?

A living wage should be based on how many people are in your household more than anything else, really. Two people living alone can make it by on less money than two people who have even one kid.

Think of tax cuts like a Christmas Bonus for companies. When Businesses expect to get the bonus, as many people see Christmas bonuses, the Business will not use it responsibly, but become dependant on the cut and expect it. Making a Tax Cut here and there to make business incentives and thus to expand is good but permanent tax cuts are bad.:headbang: its sad that in American we really only have 2 choices for the people that we elect:headbang:

thats another thing that pisses me off, bonuses should not be taxed, especiialy at the rate they are taxed

thats another thing that pisses me off, bonuses should not be taxed, especiialy at the rate they are taxed
you know in the US you can request that they don't tax your bonus?

they tax it at 20% normally, but if you write a letter (yes it has to be in writing) to your supervisor that you know for a fact that if they tax it at a lower level (then you provide the percentage) that it will not cause you undue burden that they have to do it?

unless you actually know things like how much tax you pay, how much money you make, and what percentage you actually need held out though, I wouldn't mess with it at all.

'Bout damn time, if you ask me. Minimum wage is the only way to keep the playing feild even.

Just for a moment, let's adress the "economic" complaints:

1) It's gonna make people lose their jobs:

No, Rather, as people make more money, they will buy more things, keeping things stable. This is just simple Malthusian thinking. Only by keeping larger amounts of money moving does the economy keep moving. Also, this is an important policy to prevent a collapse of the economy from a rising credit bubble. When people have more money, they will be less likely to buy on credit.

2) People are payed what they're worth. If they were worth more, they would be payed more.

This is sheer nonsense. For a large number of jobs employers strive very hard to keep the pay down. Just because an employer is capable of saying that a person's work isn't worth living wage doesn't mean it's true.

3) OMG INFLATIONZZZ!!!

:rolleyes: Not really. Inflation is caused by either the lowering value of whatever the currency is pegged to (if memory serves, the US dollar is not pegged to anything) or by a growing amount of that currency in a market. That doesn't mean the current (pun intended) amount moving more, that means more money.

4) If people deserved more, they'd ask for it.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the height of idiocy. When, if ever, has an employer ever cared what a worker was worth? When your choice is no job at all, or a really bad job for a pittance, which are you going to take?

How about "being able to buy enough food to actually get through each month without going hungry, enough money to pay the utilities, and enough money to put your kids through school, while also being able to spend leftover money on personal things"?

Still not answering my questions.

What kind of food? Are we talking steak every night or the basics?

Utilities? Are we talking cable TV? Full phone service w/ multiple lines and cell phone/ Leaving the lights on 24/7?

"Leftover money"? How much is that exactly?

"Personal things"? Like what?

ya i hate that bonuses are taxed. if you add up all the taxes we pay to the US government its horrible... sales tax, property tax, gas tax, income taxes to state fedreal local governments, in many states exessive "luxury tax" (stinks for all single women with jewelry), fire arms tax, alcohol taxes, etc. not to mention all the licences we need to hunt, fish, drive a car. Heck there are even extra taxes on your phone bill i forgot what they call it "wireless communications tax"... its bad

How about "being able to buy enough food to actually get through each month without going hungry, enough money to pay the utilities, and enough money to put your kids through school, while also being able to spend leftover money on personal things"?

Eat what? Grits or the Best steaks available
Pay the electricity bill for lights and a refrigerator, or does it include the PS3 and the 42" plasma tv?
Which school (I don't know the US system there) and personal things are a few clothes or a Ferrari?

I know that I have exaggerated on each end, but a living wage has to be defined if you want to claim that people should be guaranteed one.

Still not answering my questions.

What kind of food? Are we talking steak every night or the basics?

Utilities? Are we talking cable TV? Full phone service w/ multiple lines and cell phone/ Leaving the lights on 24/7?

"Leftover money"? How much is that exactly?

"Personal things"? Like what?
I really want to know also, I haven't bought a new outfit in 2 years, I don't have new shoes, nor do I have a new car (92 Jeep Cherokee), and I have to really plan out to be able to get food for my kids, and yet we make what most would consider middle class earnings, I want to know if we would be doing better on this "living wage", or not.

Inflation is caused by either the lowering value of whatever the currency is pegged to (if memory serves, the US dollar is not pegged to anything) or by a growing amount of that currency in a market. That doesn't mean the current (pun intended) amount moving more, that means more money.

Yep Nixon took us of the gold standard to try to avoid a econmic crisis after the high interest rates and thus loan rates in Pres. Carters. presidency. Nixon didnt help the problem he just made out money be backed up by nothing. So hold on to your second amendment cause if the solution to the national debt is to print more money we will need to defend what we have. we might have some hyper inflation on our hands:mp5:

with that attitude it is.

it can't work like that, not any time soon, since every country has a different economy, so not all of them could afford it, some might be ideologically against the idea anyway

I really want to know also, I haven't bought a new outfit in 2 years, I don't have new shoes, nor do I have a new car (92 Jeep Cherokee), and I have to really plan out to be able to get food for my kids, and yet we make what most would consider middle class earnings, I want to know if we would be doing better on this "living wage", or not.

Check out this site, and click ULW Formula.

ULW site (http://www.universallivingwage.org/)

That's the sort of thing people are talking about.

Still not answering my questions.

What kind of food? Are we talking steak every night or the basics?

Utilities? Are we talking cable TV? Full phone service w/ multiple lines and cell phone/ Leaving the lights on 24/7?

"Leftover money"? How much is that exactly?

"Personal things"? Like what?

1: I answered them; you just weren't on the same page. No problemo, see, because I'll clarify all of that in my next few points.

2: People need meat, vegetables, fruits, dairy products, and grains. If you can't afford these essentials, you're not earning a living wage.

3: Electricity, water, basic television, internet service (at least 56k, though cable and DSL are quickly becoming basic), and phone service (long distance service is a must for a lot of people). Anything more than this is really non-essential.

4: Enough to spend on holidays, and possibly take a vacation once a year. What's life when all you do is work and spend all of your money on the basics? Stressful and unfulfilled, that's what.

5: A stereo, an HDTV, a new game console... Could be anything you want. Even fancy clothes (though I don't know why the hell anyone bothers with those).

And don't go saying people live decent lives with the bare-minimum basics. They don't.

I really want to know also, I haven't bought a new outfit in 2 years, I don't have new shoes, nor do I have a new car (92 Jeep Cherokee), and I have to really plan out to be able to get food for my kids, and yet we make what most would consider middle class earnings, I want to know if we would be doing better on this "living wage", or not.


Thats sad to see such a good person having to struggle just to survive and then turn on the tube to see another rich person buying a 700 million dollar house or something....gawd...pisses me off. My mom is in the same situation as you smunkee, except now she has to worry about helping me get through college...and my dad is in the same boat as well. it hurts me to see that they have to go without at times so that maybe me or my sis might get a new outfit or something....gosh:mad:

Check out this site, and click ULW Formula.

ULW site (http://www.universallivingwage.org/)

That's the sort of thing people are talking about.
oh okay. See, I clicked to see about my city,state and they have that the fair market rent for a 4 bedroom house is like $580, I would really like to know where they found that since the going rate for a 1 bedroom apartment here seems to be $1500 a month. I think we wouldn't do any better on a living wage seeing the numbers like that.

I live in Oregon, minimum wage here is already $7.50. So sad to say but this won't effect me.

Thats sad to see such a good person having to struggle just to survive and then turn on the tube to see another rich person buying a 700 million dollar house or something....gawd...pisses me off. My mom is in the same situation as you smunkee, except now she has to worry about helping me get through college...and my dad is in the same boat as well. it hurts me to see that they have to go without at times so that maybe me or my sis might get a new outfit or something....gosh:mad:
it doesn't upset me, it makes me want to work harder. What upsets me is people who think that every teenager and entry level employee should get a paycheck that will cover all their luxury items and then fails to see that it will cause people like me to struggle even more.

If you raise the min. wage cost of living goes up and people who don't make min. wage don't get raises.

I have a friend who has worked her butt off to make $8 an hour, if they raise the min. wage to $7.00 an hour or whatever then she isn't doing much better anymore is she? in fact she just about has a min. wage job then doesn't she? It's bad enough that she has to have a AA in business to get the $8.00 job.

1: I answered them; you just weren't on the same page. No problemo, see, because I'll clarify all of that in my next few points.

2: People need meat, vegetables, fruits, dairy products, and grains. If you can't afford these essentials, you're not earning a living wage.

3: Electricity, water, basic television, internet service (at least 56k, though cable and DSL are quickly becoming basic), and phone service (long distance service is a must for a lot of people). Anything more than this is really non-essential.

4: Enough to spend on holidays, and possibly take a vacation once a year. What's life when all you do is work and spend all of your money on the basics? Stressful and unfulfilled, that's what.

5: A stereo, an HDTV, a new game console... Could be anything you want. Even fancy clothes (though I don't know why the hell anyone bothers with those).

And don't go saying people live decent lives with the bare-minimum basics. They don't.


1. Actually you made generalities.

2.You still aren't getting the point. There's lots of different levels of food consumption. Those "basics" can vary by hundreds of dollars.

3. Electricity & water Yes. Of course you still get into amounts.

Tv is not a necessity. A pair of rabbit ears work just fine.

Internet is not a necessity.

Neither are "essential".

4. BS. Holidays are not "essential". Neither are vacations.

Basically half of what you are talking about are "non-essentials" and "creature comforts". Basically rewarding people for not improving themselves.

There goes the dollar menu at McDonalds. Now it will be a $2 menu. What a benefit that will be for all the people that just had their paychecks devalued.Won't happen. There's not a one-to-one connection between prices and wages--prices are set by what the market will bear. Doesn't matter what the minimum wage is--McDonald's won't charge what people won't pay. Besides, there was a study done a year or two ago that showed McDonald's could double their labor costs, add a nickel to all of their products, and still have the same profit margins. If I ate at McDonald's I'd pay an extra nickel so the person working behind the counter could make a living wage.

oh okay. See, I clicked to see about my city,state and they have that the fair market rent for a 4 bedroom house is like $580, I would really like to know where they found that since the going rate for a 1 bedroom apartment here seems to be $1500 a month. I think we wouldn't do any better on a living wage seeing the numbers like that.

Strange. They were spot on for my county, but I looked at Ann Arbor, and they're way, way under. They have a 1 bedroom at 713, but some of my friends there said it's impossible to find a 1 bedroom under $900, and that's with very small hole in the wall. They say they get the average rent prices from the US Dept of Housing. The problem lies there, I think.

it doesn't upset me, it makes me want to work harder. What upsets me is people who think that every teenager and entry level employee should get a paycheck that will cover all their luxury items and then fails to see that it will cause people like me to struggle even more.

If you raise the min. wage cost of living goes up and people who don't make min. wage don't get raises.

I have a friend who has worked her butt off to make $8 an hour, if they raise the min. wage to $7.00 an hour or whatever then she isn't doing much better anymore is she? in fact she just about has a min. wage job then doesn't she? It's bad enough that she has to have a AA in business to get the $8.00 job.


maybe we should have a proportional raise of their income as well? like if you make 3/hr above the min wage then when it is 7.25 you are making 10.25...well i guess that kinda puts them back in the same boat..hmm

1. Actually you made generalities.

2.You still aren't getting the point. There's lots of different levels of food consumption. Those "basics" can vary by hundreds of dollars.

3. Electricity & water Yes. Of course you still get into amounts.

Tv is not a necessity. A pair of rabbit ears work just fine.

Internet is not a necessity.

Neither are "essential".

4. BS. Holidays are not "essential". Neither are vacations.

Basically half of what you are talking about are "non-essentials" and "creature comforts". Basically rewarding people for not improving themselves.

yep. pretty much.

I think that sounds like a grand Idea, even though big business will hate it. I like it because far too long politicians have been able to give themselves increases without even thinking about the american public. I mean they have increased their paychecks, why not help out the poverty stricken americans?
If an American is "poverty stricken" it's almost always for one of these reasons:

* They are addicted to some illegal substance.
* They have had some sort of major illness or other "life crisis."
* They are mentally or socially non-functional.
* They are too lazy to work.
* They are too stupid to work.
* They choose to live in a depressed area ( primarily Appalachia and inner-cities ).
* They are the children of any of the above.

Raising the minimum wage has always been a Democratic chant because one of their primary sources of support is labor unions.

I note that nowhere in the quoted article does it indicate how many people are currently earning minimum wage, nor does it indicate whether the current minimum wage is inadequate for a minimal living standard.

What the article does do, however, is try to set one group of people against another by making unfavorable comparisons. This has been a touch-stone of Democratic campaigns for many years now.

Reality says that if you want to motivate people who can be motivated by money, you have to have monetary rewards for those so motivated. Thus: income disparity.

Additionally, any cursory examination of voting records will indicate that just as many Democrats voted for increases in salaries for office-holders as did Republicans.

maybe we should have a proportional raise of their income as well? like if you make 3/hr above the min wage then when it is 7.25 you are making 10.25...well i guess that kinda puts them back in the same boat..hmm
the government shouldn't bother with what companies pay their people at all, there is an idea ;)

the government shouldn't bother with what companies pay their people at all, there is an idea ;)


because that works so well in the third world, where people are paid pennies a day?

At first I thought this was an honest question but your other responces kind of smells of the lazy poor people crap.

I will answer it having lived it as a child of a divorsed mother of two in a time where society looked down on such women.

Cable TV?
-- Wasn't around but larger TVs were starting to happen. We had a tiny color tv which somebody gave us.

Cell phone/quality of landline service?
-- Cell phones were not around and WTF is quality landline service? We had a phone. Which was shut off a few times.

-- How many vehicles?
One which was a rather shitty Ford.

-- New/Used
Used.

Type of home?
WTF? It was a 3 bedroom.

Rent/own?
-- Rent with help from the grandparents from time to time.

Food quality?
-- Basics which we tended to run out at the end of the month. There was more then a few times where my school lunch was an apple.

Clothing?
-- Hand me downs

So WTF is your point?

Let's hear you define as a living wage.

because that works so well in the third world, where people are paid pennies a day?
America isn't a third world country :rolleyes:

okay, maybe I was too extreme in saying the government should leave them alone, but hey, how about people realize that the minimum wage isn't supposed to be enough to raise a family, it's supposed to be the bare minimum, and that's what it is. I have little problem with an actual minimum wage, nor do I have a problem with raising it gradually over time (like going from $5.15 to $5.25 then in 5 years raising it again) but, this idea that a single mom should be able to raise her 17 kids by 16 dads on min. wage really has to go.

If an American is "poverty stricken" it's almost always for one of these reasons:

* They are addicted to some illegal substance.
* They have had some sort of major illness or other "life crisis."
* They are mentally or socially non-functional.
* They are too lazy to work.
* They are too stupid to work.
* They choose to live in a depressed area ( primarily Appalachia and inner-cities ).
* They are the children of any of the above.

Well, my parents are none of the above, but, although we are not poverty stricken as some, we still have to struggle to meet the basics. So how do you explain that?


Raising the minimum wage has always been a Democratic chant because one of their primary sources of support is labor unions.

I note that nowhere in the quoted article does it indicate how many people are currently earning minimum wage, nor does it indicate whether the current minimum wage is inadequate for a minimal living standard.

Im sure it is somewhere on their site, this was just a quickie email i got. Im sure they didn't want to send like a five page email to everyone



What the article does do, however, is try to set one group of people against another by making unfavorable comparisons. This has been a touch-stone of Democratic campaigns for many years now.
Reality is that it is one group against another. The rich versus the poor, the haves vs the have nots. Those with power vs those at the bottom of the food chain.


Reality says that if you want to motivate people who can be motivated by money, you have to have monetary rewards for those so motivated. Thus: income disparity.
That doesn't work to well for people that have to work through min. wage jobs for over half there life while they see some rich kid taking over daddy's company...That kind of extreme disparity really motivates me, i mean knowing that no matter how hard i try, ill never be "as good" as those other people that get a free ride through life.


Additionally, any cursory examination of voting records will indicate that just as many Democrats voted for increases in salaries for office-holders as did Republicans.


Well of course they did, all bloody politicians are the same!:p

Well, my parents are none of the above, but, although we are not poverty stricken as some, we still have to struggle to meet the basics. So how do you explain that?
poor financial skills? seriously Eut. just about covered all of it, in my case it's big bad medical mojo that costs us all our money.

Reality is that it is one group against another. The rich versus the poor, the haves vs the have nots. Those with power vs those at the bottom of the food chain.
that's really a sad look on life.


That doesn't work to well for people that have to work through min. wage jobs for over half there life while they see some rich kid taking over daddy's company...That kind of extreme disparity really motivates me, i mean knowing that no matter how hard i try, ill never be "as good" as those other people that get a free ride through life.
money doesn't come from nowhere, someone way down the line maybe but someone had to work very hard to get there, if your parent's don't have the money (regardless of their working very hard, I am sure they do) then it's up to you to work really hard and turn things around. Having the attitude that you aren't "as good" as someone because they have more money, isn't going to get you anywhere (and btw neither is whining about it on the internet)

I don't know...Maybe its just me. Maybe its because i was born in a poor household. Where i had to watch my parents take whatever job that they can get, where i had to see them go with out medical care just to put food on the table, where i had to see them worry about how they were going to pay the bills. hell even my mom took a second job with in the last year , kind of degrading though, she cleans a disabled man's house, only for a extra 100 bucks a month. My dad. he has gotten over wieght, i mean for a while he was living great, had a job with the city, but lost that becuase of political indifferences with the mayor and so(it was a harrassment case), he is in between jobs now, he tries to get and do odd jobs like heating and air, which can pay good, but its hard for him to do the work. I don't know. Maybe its because i know now, as i am turning 19, that money is a rare thing and every dollar DOES count. maybe i have just seen so many people in the ghetto, the poor areas, stay there becuase they have no hope in this life and give up. i guess its just me.

I don't know...Maybe its just me. Maybe its because i was born in a poor household. Where i had to watch my parents take whatever job that they can get, where i had to see them go with out medical care just to put food on the table, where i had to see them worry about how they were going to pay the bills. hell even my mom took a second job with in the last year , kind of degrading though, she cleans a disabled man's house, only for a extra 100 bucks a month. My dad. he has gotten over wieght, i mean for a while he was living great, had a job with the city, but lost that becuase of political indifferences with the mayor and so(it was a harrassment case), he is in between jobs now, he tries to get and do odd jobs like heating and air, which can pay good, but its hard for him to do the work. I don't know. Maybe its because i know now, as i am turning 19, that money is a rare thing and every dollar DOES count. maybe i have just seen so many people in the ghetto, the poor areas, stay there becuase they have no hope in this life and give up. i guess its just me.

hey I grew up in a poor house, 80% of the time we didn't have electric, or water, or heat. I didn't get good food, I didn't get healthcare, and when I was 15 I got kicked out, I worked 80 hours a week and supported myself and ended up sending money back home to try to keep them fed and clothed. I am doing better now, in the sense that my kids have food, that they don't have to worry about whether or not there will be water when they turn on the faucet, and they get to go to the doctor for *gasp* checkups and when they are sick too. I am not doing great, but things are improving, and the only reason they are is because hubby and I work very hard to make it happen.

America isn't a third world country :rolleyes:

Yeah, that's right. America's the only place that matters, and even within our own borders, poor people don't count.

After all, it's their own fault! :rolleyes:

* They are addicted to some illegal substance.
* They have had some sort of major illness or other "life crisis."
* They are mentally or socially non-functional.
* They are too lazy to work.
* They are too stupid to work.
* They choose to live in a depressed area ( primarily Appalachia and inner-cities ).
* They are the children of any of the above.
You forgot one:

* They are graduate students. :p

Anyway, the people who really benefit from increases in the minimum wage are the unionized workers whose paychecks are tied to COLAs and thus their wages go up when min. wage goes up and cost of living rises in proportion. The people it hurts are the lower middle class non-unionized workers who have to pay more for services, as well as those minimum wage workers who are forced out because their employer cuts the payroll in order to make up for the increased wages per worker.

Yeah, that's right. America's the only place that matters, and even within our own borders, poor people don't count.

After all, it's their own fault! :rolleyes:
I don't think you have read a damn thing I have said. :rolleyes:

I don't think you have read a damn thing I have said. :rolleyes:

That was the point, wasn't it?

That was the point, wasn't it?
I don't know you tell me what my point was.

I don't know you tell me what my point was.

...Damn, I was expecting a laugh from that response.

...Damn, I was expecting a laugh from that response.
I don't laugh when I am mad. ;) (I might wink though)

At first I thought this was an honest question but your other responces kind of smells of the lazy poor people crap.

I will answer it having lived it as a child of a divorsed mother of two in a time where society looked down on such women.



So WTF is your point?

Let's hear you define as a living wage.

I think you just made my point for me. We've had people define "living wage" as providing numerous creature comforts and non-necessities to what should be a little higher than what you grew up in. I've never had anyone give a clear definition of it.

I didn't grow up in a wealthy home either so you can stop w/ the BS of personal attacks.

Raising the federal minimum wage isn't generally done out of compassion for the workers [since, let's face it--most minimum wage jobs are in the service industry which is largely staffed by young people without families to support], but rather it's an ingenious ploy to increase the government's revenue. The wide majority of jobs in this country are nowhere near minimum wage. Raising it will only increase unemployment, screwing over the very people you're trying to save. The idea that every worker in the country is going to be worth a certain amount of money is just ridiculous. Some people just don't do $7/hr quality work, and demanding that they be paid that amount is laughable.

Wage increases seldom if ever increase a worker's productivity. You're essentially asking that employers offer a higher price for the same amount of value. When the government does it, the liberals jump for joy and declare a wonderous new age for workers. If a corporation tried to do it, you'd scream bloody goddamn murder. It would be like them raising the price of all goods and services without increasing its quality.... oh wait! that will also probably happen if we increase the minimum wage!

Horrible idea. If you want to put money in these people's pockets, stop fucking stealing it before they even cash their paychecks. "Increasing" [I use the term loosely] their wage and taxing them more is not the answer and never will be. This country will either realize this, or it will destroy itself economically. With growing economic competition from Asia, this is the last thing we need.

Raising the federal minimum wage isn't generally done out of compassion for the workers [since, let's face it--most minimum wage jobs are in the service industry which is largely staffed by young people without families to support], but rather it's an ingenious ploy to increase the government's revenue. The wide majority of jobs in this country are nowhere near minimum wage. Raising it will only increase unemployment, screwing over the very people you're trying to save. The idea that every worker in the country is going to be worth a certain amount of money is just ridiculous. Some people just don't do $7/hr quality work, and demanding that they be paid that amount is laughable.

Wage increases seldom if ever increase a worker's productivity. You're essentially asking that employers offer a higher price for the same amount of value. When the government does it, the liberals jump for joy and declare a wonderous new age for workers. If a corporation tried to do it, you'd scream bloody goddamn murder. It would be like them raising the price of all goods and services without increasing its quality.... oh wait! that will also probably happen if we increase the minimum wage!

Horrible idea. If you want to put money in these people's pockets, stop fucking stealing it before they even cash their paychecks. "Increasing" [I use the term loosely] their wage and taxing them more is not the answer and never will be. This country will either realize this, or it will destroy itself economically. With growing economic competition from Asia, this is the last thing we need.

I actually agree with this. Though I'm no fan of the Capitalist system (at least in its current state), you're right about this.

I, for one, do believe that people should be rewarded for the work that they do. I also believe that a lot of people don't do good enough work for the wages they're paid.

Raising the federal minimum wage isn't generally done out of compassion for the workers

Haven't you heard?

Raising the minimum wage won't increase prices and will reduce the income gap in the US.

It will also make the rivers run w/ fat-free chocolate and rain gumdrops.

Haven't you heard?

Raising the minimum wage won't increase prices and will reduce the income gap in the US.

It will also make the rivers run w/ fat-free chocolate and rain gumdrops.

Fat-free chocolate is shit, and you know it.

Fat-free chocolate is shit, and you know it.

True, but if it was milk chocolate, all the fat, lazy poor people would just get fatter and then we'ld be paying them disability. Then we'ld have to import more illegals to do their work. :p

I think this is a bad idea because it increases wages without any corresponding increases in productivity with the result being that productivity falls and inflation will acclerate reducing overall employment. Since the overwhelming majority of jobs are nowhere near minimum wage the costs in terms of reduced employment will be considerably larger than the benefits.

In my opinion, we should be providing a way for people working minimum-wage jobs to get out of them in to something better rather than simply increasing the amount they get because that does nothing but drive up costs and lower productivity with little or no gains in overall well being.

Training and interest free loans should be available and the government should provide additional supplementary income for those taking such programs.

I actually agree with this. Though I'm no fan of the Capitalist system (at least in its current state), you're right about this.

I, for one, do believe that people should be rewarded for the work that they do. I also believe that a lot of people don't do good enough work for the wages they're paid.
I'm surprised, I suspected the strongest opposition would come from you.

That said, the counterargument I was expecting was along the lines of "we're not trying to increase productivity, we just want to make it easier for people to live."

My reply to that, of course, is that most people don't actually earn minimum wage, but even they must suffer the risk of losing their job as a result of such an increase.

Minimum wage is just as much of a money game for politicians as profit/loss margins are for corporations. Not once has it never occured to these people to just stop taxing them and if it has, no one so far has had the balls to suggest it. I run into a lot of people who attempt to exonerate the system on virtue of the fact that they "get that money back" come tax return time, but Social Security is a much more devastating expense for low-income earners than the federal income tax will ever be. I worked full-time for a year and got a whopping $300 back from my return--and this was while I was earning $7.25 an hour. Not much of a return there, even under the proposed minimum wage increase. Besides, it's not like living expenses can be paid annualy. Try telling your landlord that you'll pay your rent on April 15th and see what he says.

to be honest and i know i'll get a lot of people pissed off at me... i dont believe there should be any minumum wage...me being a libertarian i mean come on there are hundreds of illeagle imigrants coming each day working for what 3 dollars an hour? and thats only if there picked to do the job! states mabey should have there own or they should just abolish it i mean no person other than a ileagle imigrant is gonna work for less than 6.00

Lies, all LIES! We all know there are no poor people in the United States.


i hope this is sarcasm... $10,700 a year, and thats without taxes! thats enough to live, sure... if you live in a CHEAP place! good luck living in like, NYC or something with that kinda wage...

I'm surprised, I suspected the strongest opposition would come from you.

That said, the counterargument I was expecting was along the lines of "we're not trying to increase productivity, we just want to make it easier for people to live."

My reply to that, of course, is that most people don't actually earn minimum wage, but even they must suffer the risk of losing their job as a result of such an increase.

Minimum wage is just as much of a money game for politicians as profit/loss margins are for corporations. Not has never occured to these people and if it has, no one so far has had the balls to suggest it. I run into a lot of people who attempt to exonerate the system on virtue of the fact that they "get that money back" come tax return time, but Social Security is a much more devastating expense for low-income earners than the federal income tax will ever be. I worked full-time for a year and got a whopping $300 back from my return--and this was while I was earning $7.25 an hour. Not much of a return there, even under the proposed minimum wage increase. Besides, it's not like living expenses can be paid annualy. Try telling your landlord that you'll pay your rent on April 15th and see what he says.

*moves bowl of soup off of laptop for easier typing*

1: Well, our idealogies really don't seem to be so different. And when people make sense, regardless of the topic of discussion, I tend to agree with them. It's the people who speak out of their asses that really get to me.

2: Never expect a set argument from me. You should know that by now, man. :p

3: Point.

4: I agree completely. What this country needs is a complete overhaul, but that's not likely to happen. Yet.

My two cents: Wages should be paid based on the work done, not what a set authority says they should be. If you work hard, it should pay off.

Minimum wage is just as much of a money game for politicians as profit/loss margins are for corporations. Not once has it never occured to these people to just stop taxing them and if it has, no one so far has had the balls to suggest it. I run into a lot of people who attempt to exonerate the system on virtue of the fact that they "get that money back" come tax return time, but Social Security is a much more devastating expense for low-income earners than the federal income tax will ever be. I worked full-time for a year and got a whopping $300 back from my return--and this was while I was earning $7.25 an hour. Not much of a return there, even under the proposed minimum wage increase. Besides, it's not like living expenses can be paid annualy. Try telling your landlord that you'll pay your rent on April 15th and see what he says.

My situation has finally stabalized. I lost a good job due to a crappy boss right after we bought our home. I was effectively out of work for about 8 months. I've been in a steady job for the last year.

Our tax returns and the money from my reserve AT is paying our mortgage for the year and our property taxes. All the rest goes towards basic expenses for myself and my family and paying off the debt built up from when I was out of work. Not including student loan or mortgage, we should be debt free w/i 2 years.

If/when they raise the MW, ALL prices will go up and will extend our debt.

minimum wage goes up, prices go up. it sets itself to being about the same

minimum wage should not be at a national level, each state should have its own minimum wage. and it should be that states resposibility
The state's know what's best for the states and they will do things on their own without us telling them to!

Buuuulll shit.

Minimum wage needs to be at the national level because the national level is the only level with any real power to raise the minimum wage. Half the states have not raised their minimum wages; several states have no minimum wage law and some have minimum wage rates below the national one.

i hope this is sarcasm... $10,700 a year, and thats without taxes! thats enough to live, sure... if you live in a CHEAP place! good luck living in like, NYC or something with that kinda wage...

He is channeling Ed Meese ;)

The state's know what's best for the states and they will do things on their own without us telling them to!

Buuuulll shit.

Minimum wage needs to be at the national level because the national level is the only level with any real power to raise the minimum wage. Half the states have not raised their minimum wages; several states have no minimum wage law and some have minimum wage rates below the national one.

Here's the situation I see w/ states setting the levels:

Jim Bob pumps gas in AK for $5.50 an hour. He moves to MO and gets the same job for $4.75 and throws a fit. Other gas-pumpers start to gripe because workers in AK are making more for the same job. It's "not fair" to them.

If an American is "poverty stricken" it's almost always for one of these reasons:
* They are addicted to some illegal substance.
Or have to take legal substances.


* They have had some sort of major illness or other "life crisis."

Because you know, major, life altering illnesses are silly little things that can be thrown into the cliche "life crisis."


* They are too lazy to work.
* They are too stupid to work.
Nope, no one working two jobs at a time is ever or has ever been poverty stricken, no sirree Bob.

Raising the minimum wage has always been a Democratic chant because one of their primary sources of support is labor unions.
Then I can say Republicans oppose it because their primary sources of support are big corporations and the socially/economically gifted.

I note that nowhere in the quoted article does it indicate how many people are currently earning minimum wage, nor does it indicate whether the current minimum wage is inadequate for a minimal living standard.
Because that has jack fucking squat to do with the point. It isn't a scientific article dealing with the effects and existance of current levels of minimum wage, it is a brief request to support a raising of it.

What the article does do, however, is try to set one group of people against another by making unfavorable comparisons. This has been a touch-stone of Democratic campaigns for many years now.
I know I'm not the only person who sees the irony in that section of the quote and two sections up.

Reality says that if you want to motivate people who can be motivated by money, you have to have monetary rewards for those so motivated. Thus: income disparity.
Remember everyone, no one working a full time job or two jobs is or has ever been poverty stricken.

Additionally, any cursory examination of voting records will indicate that just as many Democrats voted for increases in salaries for office-holders as did Republicans.
Which was really an irrelevant point in the article anyway.

Someone mentioned something interesting about the haves vs the have nots earlier and how sad that was to view things like that. About 4 months ago I read the Forbes top 400 wealthiest people in the USA list. Just for my own curiosity I did some quick (albeit very rough) calculations. These are not intented to be accurate fully, it just gives a glimpse of the overwhelming wealth these people have. I took their net-worth, and left them 10% of what they currently have. The 400th position on the Forbes list I believe still would have a net worth of 90 million with 10% of their worth. Certainly not in poverty in the least. Now take that combined other 90% of their money, and they could pay (combined) every single person in America $3,100 dollars. I assumed a population of 280 million. As I said I'm aware that there is obviously a lot more that would need to be taken into consideration with this. It is only just to represent how exceedingly rich these people are. If anyone wants to do better more accurate calculations to disprove me, feel free... this is just just an estimation ;)

Someone mentioned something interesting about the haves vs the have nots earlier and how sad that was to view things like that. About 4 months ago I read the Forbes top 400 wealthiest people in the USA list. Just for my own curiosity I did some quick (albeit very rough) calculations. These are not intented to be accurate fully, it just gives a glimpse of the overwhelming wealth these people have. I took their net-worth, and left them 10% of what they currently have. The 400th position on the Forbes list I believe still would have a net worth of 90 million with 10% of their worth. Certainly not in poverty in the least. Now take that combined other 90% of their money, and they could pay (combined) every single person in America $3,100 dollars. I assumed a population of 280 million. As I said I'm aware that there is obviously a lot more that would need to be taken into consideration with this. It is only just to represent how exceedingly rich these people are. If anyone wants to do better more accurate calculations to disprove me, feel free... this is just just an estimation ;)

That would be cool if we can get someone to find similar results, or disprove it, either way.

Someone mentioned something interesting about the haves vs the have nots earlier and how sad that was to view things like that. About 4 months ago I read the Forbes top 400 wealthiest people in the USA list. Just for my own curiosity I did some quick (albeit very rough) calculations. These are not intented to be accurate fully, it just gives a glimpse of the overwhelming wealth these people have. I took their net-worth, and left them 10% of what they currently have. The 400th position on the Forbes list I believe still would have a net worth of 90 million with 10% of their worth. Certainly not in poverty in the least. Now take that combined other 90% of their money, and they could pay (combined) every single person in America $3,100 dollars. I assumed a population of 280 million. As I said I'm aware that there is obviously a lot more that would need to be taken into consideration with this. It is only just to represent how exceedingly rich these people are. If anyone wants to do better more accurate calculations to disprove me, feel free... this is just just an estimation ;)
The scariest thing about that isn't your figures, but rather their moral implications. The only reason they have that money is because we traded it to them in the first place. Asking [or, if you're prepared to make a policy out of it--demanding] that they return it is a flagrant attempt to have one's cake [buy goods from these people] and eat it too [get your money back].

The scariest thing about that isn't your figures, but rather their moral implications. The only reason they have that money is because we traded it to them in the first place. Asking [or, if you're prepared to make a policy out of it--demanding] that they return it is a flagrant attempt to have one's cake [buy goods from these people] and eat it too [get your money back].


You know..I never got that one. If I have a cake, i am going to want to eat it. anyone would. Its not like you have a cake and just let it set out on the table to disappear....oh well

You know..I never got that one. If I have a cake, i am going to want to eat it. anyone would. Its not like you have a cake and just let it set out on the table to disappear....oh well
it was switched in translation, it should be "you can't eat your cake and have it too" meaning that once you eat it you don't have it anymore.

You know..I never got that one. If I have a cake, i am going to want to eat it. anyone would. Its not like you have a cake and just let it set out on the table to disappear....oh well
:headbang:

It's an allegory. It's meant to illustrate that a trade-off of any sort means you gain one thing and lose something else. You can either keep the cake and enjoy looking at it [I guess] or use it to fill your stomach.

it was switched in translation, it should be "you can't eat your cake and have it too" meaning that once you eat it you don't have it anymore.

Ohhhhh that makes more sense thx!

well without a national min. wage what makes you think that some place like...ohio that used to have a large industry site wouldn't lower the min wage to say...2.25 an hr, to get more business to come there..sure there is more jobs, but whats a job worth if you are not making any money?

People will go where the wages are higher. wage markets have historically leveled out to what people are willing to work for. If no one is willing to work for 2.25, then businesses will pay more up to the point that they have what they consider full employment. Burger King here pays 7.25 to start because that is what peopple will work at BK for. there is no need for a minimum wage.

A living wage should be based on how many people are in your household more than anything else, really. Two people living alone can make it by on less money than two people who have even one kid.

Case in point, when I was in college back in the 90's, I was pulling in about $9200 after taxes. Yes, you read that right - $9200. I was not poor. I ate, paid rent, smoked cigarrettes... and lived in a house with four other guys. Poor is what you think it is. I had plenty of money because I knew how to make what I was making work for me. Minimum wage is plenty of money to live on - if you do it right. Now, childcare costs are the main argument against being able to make it on minimum wage, but that is what parents, family, and keeping your dick in your pants are for.

True. But then, there are hardly enough people in my own country to start a revolution of any sort.

Then get recruiting. We need soldiers.

I just thought of this but I know nothing about economics... so what comes next may very well be stupid. But what if instead of increasing the minimum wage, we rewarded companies and businesses that offered higher wages for lower level work? That way it would be more of an optional thing, instead of an across the board pay increase. The rewards could be represented by tax deductions and so on and so forth.

But I have no idea what I'm saying.

The American minimum wage is only $5.15 an hour? Wow.

I think that sounds like a grand Idea, even though big business will hate it. I like it because far too long politicians have been able to give themselves increases without even thinking about the american public. I mean they have increased their paychecks, why not help out the poverty stricken americans?
I agree fully.

The American minimum wage is only $5.15 an hour? Wow.
I heard its $2.35 in Kansas, or parts of it at least. I know in Washington its like $7.16 or something...

we rewarded companies and businesses that offered higher wages for lower level work?

Isn't that called Executive pay packages?

Isn't that called Executive pay packages?
You lost me at Executive... I told you I'm a retard when it comes to economics...


...this is painfully close to actually doing math...

I heard its $2.35 in Kansas, or parts of it at least. I know in Washington its like $7.16 or something...
Impossible unless you are below legal age to work but are doing a job where you can do that or are in the service industry where you expect tips.

there is no need for a minimum wage.
Delusion of the highest calibre.

I ate, paid rent, smoked cigarrettes... and lived in a house with four other guys. Poor is what you think it is.
You mean you were splitting rent, food, and utilities five ways. Ok, soon as we abolish child labor laws families of 5 can do that too and everyone will be a-ok.

It astounds me that america with all its money still lets its citizens live in such poverty. The minimum wage in england is equivalent to about $8.75, and we have free healthcare, and other tax benifits and whatnot for the poor. God bless Tony and Gordon. But yeah, the US really does need to do something about the poverty. Reduce poverty and you reduce crime, improve education, reduce drug use, basically save money on policing and improve the future work force.

This minimum wage increase is definitely a good thing, but it needs to be increased every year at at least the rate of inflation.

I am for a living wage (above what the govt. says is a living wage) as well as lowered taxes as we cut the pay to our lawmakers in half and slash pork spending.

how can we make it happen? i dunno.

I am for a living wage (above what the govt. says is a living wage) as well as lowered taxes as we cut the pay to our lawmakers in half and slash pork spending.

how can we make it happen? i dunno.

Slash the pork: good
Cut lawmakers pay (or at least limit their "raises"):good
Lowered taxes: to vague

"Living Wage": Maybe you'll be the first one to actually define it.

It astounds me that america with all its money still lets its citizens live in such poverty. The minimum wage in england is equivalent to about $8.75, and we have free healthcare, and other tax benifits and whatnot for the poor. God bless Tony and Gordon. But yeah, the US really does need to do something about the poverty. Reduce poverty and you reduce crime, improve education, reduce drug use, basically save money on policing and improve the future work force.

(1) High poverty rates aren't limited to the US.
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=227872005
THE UK still has one of the highest child poverty rates in the rich world, a report revealed today.

A total of 15.4 per cent of the child population in Britain lives below the poverty line, according to Unicef, even though Government campaigns have led to a 10 per cent drop in child poverty. The organisations report today reveals up to 50 million children are growing up in poverty in the world’s richest countries.

Over the past decade the number of children living in poverty has risen in 17 out of 24 industrialised OECD nations.

(2) Census data find an ever-growing material prosperity, with formerly high-dollar luxury items now commonplace in even poor households.
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/invest/extra/P140067.asp

The Census report also compares, from 1992 through 1998, people's perceptions of whether basic needs were being met. More than 92% of Americans below the poverty line said they had enough food, as of 1998. Some 86% said they had no unmet need for a doctor, 89% had no roof leaks, and 87% said they had no unpaid rent or mortgage.

Two-thirds of those in poverty had air conditioners in 1998, up from 50% in 1992. Personal computers have grown increasingly ubiquitous. Where fewer than 20% of homes had them in 1992, nearly 60% did in 2002 (more than own dishwashers).

(3) During a time when US poverty rates started dropping dramatically (the 60s and 70s) crime and drug use actually went up, way WAY up.

This is the US homocide rate per capita going back to 1950. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/totalstab.htm

And poverty rates over a similar time period.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html


(4) It is important to look at just WHOM in the USA is poor.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov4.html
Notice among households comprised of married people, with or without children, the poverty rate is consistently below 10% for black, white and Asian households (Latino households are an exception - which I will address later).

Among single-parent headed households, particularly single women with children (there are 9.7 million such families according the Census bureau data) the poverty rate is much much higher.

(5) One reason for disproportionately higher latino poverty in the US may be immigration. The USA takes in hundreds of thousands of mostly Latino mostly low-income immigrants annually. By adding hundreds of thousands of poor every year, this may show up in poverty statistics.

No unmet need for a doctor at 86% below the povertly line? I declare shenanigans. There are people above the poverty line who have unmet needs of a doctor. I then assume "no unmet need for a doctor" is that they can get a doctor when they are sick enough to need one or die from the disease.

Delusion of the highest calibre.


You mean you were splitting rent, food, and utilities five ways. Ok, soon as we abolish child labor laws families of 5 can do that too and everyone will be a-ok.

You're gonna have to expand on that first one. My reasoning for not needing a minimum wage is that people in general already make more than minimum wage in the vast majority of the country. If there is a legitimate need for a minimum wage, then why are so many employers paying more than minimum wage? The answer is that employers, by and large, pay what is necessary to get people to work for them. Employers have demonstrated in a great many places that that is more than minimum wage.

And, yes, if a family of five has trouble paying the bills, it might be necessary for them to find some way to split costs by renting out a room, finding a lower cost place to live, or rethinking their budget to make what they have work. I assert that a family of five with one or both parents working that is having trouble making ends meet would probably find that by changing their spending habits, they would be better off.

I assert that a family of five with one or both parents working that is having trouble making ends meet would probably find that by changing their spending habits, they would be better off.

You're gonna have to expand on that one.

Oh oh oh. Haha