View Full Forums : Population Below Poverty Line


Thicket Tundrabog
10-02-2006, 12:04 PM
I was cruising the CBS website, particularly their summaries of different countries. I was fascinated by their data on poverty.

Population Below Poverty Line:
-----------------------------

United States 12%
Canada 15.9
Mexico 40
United Kingdom 17
France 6.5
Austria 3.9
Belgium 4
Poland 18.4
Russia 25
Hungary 8.6
Romania 28.9
Ukraine 29
Belarus 27.1
South Korea 4
Taiwan 1 (lowest number I found)
Malaysia 8
Thailand 10
China 10
Cambodia 40
Vietnam 28.9
Burma 25
Argentina 38.5
Brazil 22
Colombia 59
Chile 20.6
Israel 18
Palestinian Authority 81
Jordan 30
Turkey 20
Egypt 16.7
Iran 40
India 25
Pakistan 32
Sri Lanka 22
Algeria 23
Morocco 19
South Africa 50
Zambia 86
Angola 70
Nigeria 60
Kenya 50

Lots of countries did not have this data - e.g. Germany, Japan, Australia, Sweden, Netherlands.

There's lots of countries I didn't list.

I have no independent validation of data credibility, other than that it came from a mainstream American website.

Betcha you never thought that there were more Americans below the poverty line than Chinese :) Of course, communism is a wealth-equalizer, so you expect fewer rich and poor people.

Panamah
10-02-2006, 12:07 PM
I figure socialist or communist countries would have the least poverty, if they're not totally corrupt, like N. Korea.

What surprises me in Canada's being higher than ours. Of course then again, whose poverty definition is being used? Maybe Canada has a higher standard of living for those not defined in poverty than we do.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-02-2006, 12:34 PM
Of course, communism is a wealth-equalizer, so you expect fewer rich and poor people.

Look at Taiwan.

A country with almost unlimited Capitalism and freedom.

Actually, I would like to know what the criteria are for the poverty line. It is obviously a relative benchmark.

Anka
10-02-2006, 12:59 PM
I always distrust poverty figures until I know what measure they're using. With some you could double the wages of everyone in the country and put more people into 'poverty'.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-02-2006, 01:08 PM
Personally, I still like a standard I read about years ago.

How much time does one have to work to earn a loaf of bread index.

It removes a lot of relative factors, say inflation.

It also removes out perception relatively too, for example most poor people now have TVs, dvd players, computers with internet access, xboxes, and cell phones. All things that once were reserved for rich people.


Of course you have to factor in if the culture eats rice or cous cous instead of bread, but that is an easy conversion.

Erianaiel
10-02-2006, 01:47 PM
Lots of countries did not have this data - e.g. Germany, Japan, Australia, Sweden, Netherlands.


The Netherlands had approximately 9.8 pct people living below the Dutch poverty line. According to the EC criteria it was 10.7 pct. If you use the 'new' definition of poverty it is 6.8 pct.
(the new definition defines the poverty line at 768 euro per month. I could not find what the old limit was, probably about 850 euro per month. The new limit is supposed to cover basic (subsidised) housing, utilities, food and a modest budget for clothing. There is also a modest budget for essential repairs (like the washing machine)).



Eri

Talyena Trueheart
10-02-2006, 02:04 PM
The average poor person in America. (Jan 2004)

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

* Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
* Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
* Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
* The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
* Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
* Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
* Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
* Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

Vekx
10-02-2006, 02:11 PM
With that list i might be on the poor list then.

MadroneDorf
10-02-2006, 02:17 PM
All these figures are based on what the respective government sets their poverty line at.

China just sets their povery line really low, US sets it fairly high (and we do have some poverty problems)

I bet the average "poor" chinese person would love to be the average "poor" US person tho. (In terms of possessions/weath)

If you really wanted to see what % of people are really poor you'd have to break down each country into regions, find what each person needs to have X standard of living in that region, repeat for each region, Then do the same for every country.

I woudnt be surprised if I was officially below the poverty line last year, even though I lived quite comfortably.

Panamah
10-02-2006, 02:39 PM
I woudnt be surprised if I was officially below the poverty line last year, even though I lived quite comfortably.
Are you being supported by your parents? I sincerely doubt you'd be comfortable if you didn't have assets or savings or support from someone.

MadroneDorf
10-02-2006, 02:54 PM
Last year I supported myself, but I rent from family. (Cheaper then normal? a little, not too much... free? definately not.

If your being supported by parents your a depedent, so I wouldn't have been counted.

Lack of drinking Alcohol, and using bicycle instead of driving {gas and insurance.. ouch!} to get around (among other things) saves a ton of money, definately wouldn't have been able to do it if I did either of those.

Tudamorf
10-02-2006, 03:09 PM
You can't compare poverty lines across countries, because they're all defined differently.

A better (though not perfect) measure would be access to basics (http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=75), such as food and health care:

http://people-press.org/commentary/images/75-1.gif

http://people-press.org/commentary/images/75-3.gif

http://people-press.org/commentary/images/75-2.gif

Panamah
10-02-2006, 03:30 PM
Put housing on there and that'd be pretty complete.

Aldarion_Shard
10-02-2006, 03:52 PM
That 'unable to buy food' item is pretty mind blowing. 15%?!

As a country boy living in LA, one thing I notice about the poorer residents of this city is that they eat badly. I see homeless people eating fast food, I see food stamps being used to buy Oreos. Growing up, we didnt eat fast food because we couldnt afford it, and nobody bought brand name products like Oreos, that was like buying a new car: such an absurd waste of money that only the wealthy could afford to consider it.

I wonder if there is a difference between the number of people who couldnt buy enough food to live on, and the number of people who couldnt afford to continue making these wasteful purchases. People who arent cooking everything from scratch are wasting some amount of money. And I see few people cooking everything from scratch.

Basically, I think this may be yet another example of how good the American poor have it (expecially the urban poor): that the inability to buy Oreos would merit a 'yes' answer to the above survey among them.

[Full disclosure: We were on food stamps part of my childhood, and I spent 8 years in LA living at below the poverty level. I ma now finally above the poverty level].

And Panamah -- housing costs are the thing nobody wants to talk about. Instead we are distracted by media circuses about gas prices. Speaking as someone who lived in LA below the poverty level, and drove to work every day, gas has never consumed more than 10% of my income, while rent has typically consumed 50-75%.

Housing is I think the bigget issue in terms of American poverty.

Panamah
10-02-2006, 04:02 PM
We have crazy food prices in the US. You can get grain based food extremely cheap probably because of the grain subsidies. However, that stuff is used to manufacturer cheap grain based foods which is seriously lacking in nutrition. Calories are cheap in the US, but nutrition isn't cheap. We should be subsidizing non-grain based vegetables, if anything. I'd add fruit to that but it'd probably end up as sugary fruit-drinks instead of real, whole fruit.

Tudamorf
10-02-2006, 04:44 PM
Basically, I think this may be yet another example of how good the American poor have it (expecially the urban poor): that the inability to buy Oreos would merit a 'yes' answer to the above survey among them.Yes, the question "have there been times in the past year when you could not afford food?" will mean different things to an American and a Mexican <i>campesino</i>, and the poor American would be a rich man compared to his Mexican counterpart. It's more of a measure of subjective satisfaction than objective access to nutrients.

Talyena Trueheart
10-02-2006, 06:18 PM
As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

While the poor are generally well-nourished, some poor families do experience hunger, meaning a temporary discomfort due to food shortages. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 13 percent of poor families and 2.6 percent of poor children experience hunger at some point during the year. In most cases, their hunger is short-term. Eighty-nine percent of the poor report their families have "enough" food to eat, while only 2 percent say they "often" do not have enough to eat.

Seems most of the poor have more of a problem with eating too much than not enough. My guess is that those who are malnurished in the US due to the actual lack of food is well below that of most of the rest of the world.

Aidon
10-02-2006, 11:48 PM
Its not that the US poor eat too much, its that they do not have the time nor the funds to make healthy dinners.

Mac n Cheese is cheaper than fresh greens and fish and is much quicker to make when you're working overtime trying desperately to keep the electricity on...

Gunny Burlfoot
10-03-2006, 12:23 AM
I have known several people working at the poverty line, or slightly below it, and the issue is not how much they are making or do not make, but how good their judgement and impulse control is when it comes to making purchases.
Many of them can't see what's wrong in using check cashing places, and how that hurts them in the long run. Most people that end up on the poverty line, for whatever reason, lack the motivation to try to fight to get above their circumstances. (Granted, if you have 5 kids and are a single parent, that would be a serious de-motivating circumstance!)

I'd establish 6 ground rules if I was trying to get myself out of poverty.
1. If you are at the poverty line, you do not buy nice things. Ever. The thrift store and Goodwill are your only shopping places. Other than Big Lots or closeout places.
2. You do not go to movies ever.
3. The words 'entertainment budget' do not exist in your vocabulary. You won't have any time to be entertained, anyway, because all your time is spent working, looking for better work, or educating yourself in order to qualify for better work. See #6.
4. You drop health insurance, life insurance, and hope you don't catch anything that you can't work through.
5. You put yourself on a budget and only spend what you have in each division on what it is meant to be for.
6. You do budget some form of education or marketable skill, so that you don't live in poverty the rest of your life, but eventually will improve your work experience. If some classes are out of your financial reach, apprentice to a construction person, try to get them to help you out, show that you are very serious about getting yourself out of poverty.Things like HVAC training, car repair, or construction related (electrician, house repair, painting (do you even NEED a licence to paint?)

Hell, the landscaping company charged my roommate $80.00 to mow his lawn once! And he paid it! (After I found that out, I offered to do it for 40.00) I'm pretty sure any garden variety idiot can operate a lawnmower, a hedge trimmer (or a pair of shears if you're really poor), and a weed eater (or again, that same pair of shears you're using as a hedge trimmer works on weeds too)

If landscaping companies are charging 80 freaking dollars a job, I'm pretty sure a competing person could offer 40 and get some jobs. Hell, put in extra frills. Offer to wash their car while you're there! Bucket of water and sponge can't break anyone's bank.

Let's do the math. Let's say you're reaaaaaly lazy (busy/taking care of your 20 kids/whatever) and can only do 2 lawns a day. If you can stomach canvasing neighborhoods to offer your services, door to door, I am betting many people will probably try 40 on an unknown vs. 80 on the current landscape company. Let's say you canvas neighborhoods until you get around 50 yards to do each month.

40 x 2 = 80 x 6 = 480.00 x 4 = 1920.00 a month. Holy ****, almost 24,000 a year doing 2 lawns a day? Of course, this is assuming 40.00 a yard. But all this is just an example of what might be possible. Maybe it's not yard work. Maybe all the yard work is taken. Then you have 3 basic options.

1)Find something no one else wants to do, and offer to do it for them. (factory workers, sewer cleaners, etc)
2) Be able to do something no one else can. (athletes, movie stars, etc)
3) Have knowledge to do something no one else has the knowledge (education) to do. (scientists, doctors, lawyers)

Those are the three simple ways to make money in this world. Most people do the first ( like me) because 80% of everyone's job is boring-as-**** work that no one would do in their right mind unless they were being paid to do it.

There's my $0.02 on the matter.

Gunny Burlfoot
10-03-2006, 12:57 AM
As sort of a contrast to my last post, here's 2 links to the emotive side of what it "feels" like to "be poor".

Ran across them while looking for actual statistics on the poor, to see exactly who is poor and why some don't ever climb their way out of poverty. I know if I was poor, I'd want to stop being poor asap, whatever it took (legally), and I think almost all the poor would want to as well.

First is a link to "how to know what poor is"

http://www.scalzi.com/whatever/003704.html

Second link is a 3rd world blogger's righteous indignation at the above list, which he screams is a 1st world's definition of poverty, and makes a list in reponse to the first. Which goes to show, that indeed, 3rd world poor would do anything to be as "disadvantaged" as the US's poor are.

http://zigzackly.blogspot.com/2005/09/being-poor-my-arse.html

Aidon
10-03-2006, 09:22 AM
I have to say...I'm disgusted.

I've read this thread and seen people suggesting that the poor in America are either lazy, incompetant, or shouldn't complain because at least they aren't in a third world nation.

We are supposed to be the finest nation on the planet. It is only meet that even our poverty stricken have basic access to power, running water, transportation, and communication. This is not an indication of how good they have it. This is the basic standard of living in a nation so fine as ours.

I have read comments regarding what people would do, were they poor, indicating conjecture and theorization, not experience. Further, I read statements by those who were poor and yet somehow grew up lacking basic compassion or empathy for those who have not yet managed to extricate themselves from poverty.

That poverty in America is better than poverty is Guyana is no excuse to scorn the plight of our poor. The fact that some of those in poverty abuse the charity and welfare for our society is no excuse to cease providing for charity and welfare; nor is it a reason to install harsh measures which unfairly punish those who have not abused the system.

As I read this thread, I am flabberghasted at the utter lack of compassion from people in what is supposed to be the most generous nation on the planet, making suggestions which border on absurd for anyone who is not young, single and childless.

Gunny suggests dropping health insurance and praying you don't fall ill, and yet, who here would rely on wishes and dreams for the health of their children? What of those who are now poverty stricken because it was their health insurance dropping them, due to Mom's cancer's, rendering her unable to work a steady job during the treatment that they've just paid for with their third mortgage?

He suggests that the poor never buy nice things...and yet, in this day and age, fresh produce and healthy meat would fall into that catagory (and yet, those who decry the poor for their obesity, using it as an example of their supposed laziness, are legion). It is suggested that there be no entertainment budget...and yet, what else do you call chrismas (or hannukah) gifts for your children?

How does one budget for vocational training in a marketable skill, when you already have a two year degree as a vet tech, which cost you 25,000 dollars in loans, which gets you a $9.00 an hour job with which to pay for rent, electricity/gas, food, clothes, fuel, clothes for your children and yourself, etc?

24,000 a day mowing yards...before taxes (more than your standard taxes, mind you, because you work for yourself, normally your employer pays some of the tab). Oh, make sure to budget in the gasoline consumption. Don't forget the car payment on the pickup truck you will need (you don't think you're fitting a push mower, rakes, and various other implements in that '92 escort, do you?). Factor in such miscellenia as repairs on your lawn mower (I've never met a mower that didn't break down at least once in a season).
Then...find those who are willing to pay even $40 an hour, and convince them that they should use your poor ass, carting around a push mower in a rusted out pickup, versus the professionals with the wide deck rider.

Oh..yeah, and figure out how to get money mowing lawns in February when there's two feet of snow on the ground.


We, as a society, must stamp out this notion that those who are poverty stricken are so because they are shiftless or lazy. When two parents working minimum wage jobs fall solidly below the poverty line...it is our fault, as a society, not theirs. They go to work and put in their 40 hours of labor.

Panamah
10-03-2006, 09:22 AM
4. You drop health insurance, life insurance, and hope you don't catch anything that you can't work through.
That one cracked me up! As if they had it to begin with.

Minadin
10-03-2006, 10:27 AM
When I was poor, one of the first things I dropped was health insurance. Paying for something you basically don't use isn't a luxury you can afford. When you are looking at the small amount of income you have to work with and need to budget for the rent, taxes, utilities, $30k in student loans . . . yeah, you pretty much have to stop going out, and not buy anything that's unnecessary, or that you can probably survive without. Sorry. If you get extremely injured or ill the hospitals have to treat you first and you can pay them back later. Not worth losing your apartment over.

Talyena Trueheart
10-03-2006, 10:42 AM
We are supposed to be the finest nation on the planet. It is only meet that even our poverty stricken have basic access to power, running water, transportation, and communication. This is not an indication of how good they have it. This is the basic standard of living in a nation so fine as ours.

So, what constitutes basic standards of living? Cell phones? Multiple color TVs? VCR and DVD players? Multiple vehicles? Owning your own home? Air conditioning? Cable TV? And if you have all of that, are you really poor? In my mind, it would be the people who have problems getting all their basic bills (electricity, rent, groceries, water, not cable) paid. But under our government classification, half the poor own their own home. Most have AC. Three years ago, 25% of them had a cell phone (and I bet that number is much higher today) while less than 10% had no phone.

That poverty in America is better than poverty is Guyana is no excuse to scorn the plight of our poor. The fact that some of those in poverty abuse the charity and welfare for our society is no excuse to cease providing for charity and welfare; nor is it a reason to install harsh measures which unfairly punish those who have not abused the system.

The first post started with a comparison of poverty rates in different countries. Do you not think it is right to look at what constitutes poverty in each country in that comparison? If we supplied the US standard of poverty to other countries, I imagine the poverty number in those countries would grow greatly.

And who says what constitutes poverty in the US? It is the government. Should we just blindly go along with anything the government says without question? If the government raised the poverty level to 100k, would we have to feel sorry for those poor people only making 90k per year? Being poor is more than just some government number and I don't think it shows any lack of sympaty to point that out.

Aidon
10-03-2006, 02:04 PM
The poverty level in the US is currently around 23k a year for a family of four.

That's poor. If there are people under the poverty limit who own their own homes, its a rarity and an exception. If there are people under the poverty limit with "Cell phones? Multiple color TVs? VCR and DVD players? Multiple vehicles? Owning your own home? Air conditioning? Cable TV?", its a rarity.

Most folks in the US would consider 23k a year for a single person to be far below their standard of living.

Aldarion_Shard
10-03-2006, 02:13 PM
Aidon, I lived in Los Angeles for 8 years making 20k a year. I am not theorizing; I lived this (and hell, Im not far above it now, but am definitely above poverty).

During this time, I:
-owned a cell phone
-owned 2 computers
-ate fast food frequently, and at restaurants semi regularly
-owned a color TV, VCR, and DVD player
-had cable TV and high speed internet
-maintained accounts on several online games
-owned my own car and drove to work daily

This is in Los Angeles, where I pay 700$ for a studio apartment (because I dont want to live in the ghetto where rent is 400$).

I am saying that anyone who earns wages in this range, and spends their money on processed foods and fast food (as I did sometimes) is a fool. And what I am telling you is that in Torrance, the lower class and low-middle-class people who I grocery shop with, eat all processed food and brand names. They throw money away. They should be buying (for example) ground beef, flour, and vegetables; instead, they buy pre-made meals and snacks. [[I will note here -- Mexican lower class families seem to be anexception here; there seems to be a genuine love of real non-processed food in this culture]].

I am furthermore saying that 23k is not only not that bad; its not bad at all. Its almost comfortable. And thats in FRIGGIN LA.

Tudamorf
10-03-2006, 02:19 PM
The poverty level in the US is currently around 23k a year for a family of four.

That's poor.It depends where. In San Francisco, 23K a year might buy you a few parking spaces. In a rural town in Oregon, 23K may be enough to support a family.If there are people under the poverty limit who own their own homes, its a rarity and an exception. If there are people under the poverty limit with "Cell phones? Multiple color TVs? VCR and DVD players? Multiple vehicles? Owning your own home? Air conditioning? Cable TV?", its a rarity.Aidon, those things aren't luxuries any more. The homeless here in San Francisco have cell phones, they're so common. Walk into the poorest neighborhoods and you'll find everyone with a TV, DVD player, cable, and usually a computer.When I was poor, one of the first things I dropped was health insurance. Paying for something you basically don't use isn't a luxury you can afford.Exactly! Why pay for it yourself when you can stick the taxpayers with the bill? <img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif>

Panamah
10-03-2006, 02:20 PM
Aldarion, you weren't even CLOSE to the poverty level.

In 2004 the definition of poverty level for one person was $ 9,310.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/04poverty.shtml

Aldarion_Shard
10-03-2006, 02:33 PM
Ah. Yeah, 9k would be a totally different ball of wax.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-03-2006, 02:37 PM
Which contradicts Aidon's assertion that two people making minimum wage are poor(not that I necessarily disagree with that).

Minimum wage full time for one person would net 13K. Which itself alone is higher than the poverty level for 2 persons.

The number you cite is for statistical purposes and eligibility for social programs. Addition of those social program funds would dramatically increase the income amount; close to aldarion's 20K. Netting the same, essentially.

Aidon
10-03-2006, 03:02 PM
Aidon, I lived in Los Angeles for 8 years making 20k a year. I am not theorizing; I lived this (and hell, Im not far above it now, but am definitely above poverty).

During this time, I:
-owned a cell phone
-owned 2 computers
-ate fast food frequently, and at restaurants semi regularly
-owned a color TV, VCR, and DVD player
-had cable TV and high speed internet
-maintained accounts on several online games
-owned my own car and drove to work daily

This is in Los Angeles, where I pay 700$ for a studio apartment (because I dont want to live in the ghetto where rent is 400$).

I am saying that anyone who earns wages in this range, and spends their money on processed foods and fast food (as I did sometimes) is a fool. And what I am telling you is that in Torrance, the lower class and low-middle-class people who I grocery shop with, eat all processed food and brand names. They throw money away. They should be buying (for example) ground beef, flour, and vegetables; instead, they buy pre-made meals and snacks. [[I will note here -- Mexican lower class families seem to be anexception here; there seems to be a genuine love of real non-processed food in this culture]].

I am furthermore saying that 23k is not only not that bad; its not bad at all. Its almost comfortable. And thats in FRIGGIN LA.

23k for a family of four is not almost comfortable anywhere.

You suggest that the poor should be buying beef, flour, and vegetables, instead of pre-made meals...but when and how will this beef, flour, and vegetables be turned into dinner when both parents are working two part time jobs at minimum wage (because company's like Wal-Mart are trying to get more and more of their employees on part-time to avoid paying benefits)?
Further, lets look at the cost of some of this fresh stuff...boneless chicken breast, 1.88 per pound. Ground Chuck, 1.99 per pound. Fresh broccoli, 2 bunches for three bucks. Potatoes are still relatively cheap at 3.49 for a 10 pound bag (but then potatoes aren't considered healthy eats anymore). Milk you can get at the amazingly low price of 1 buck for a half-gallon...if you buy 10 half-gallons at a time. Then you still have to make dinner...oh, and find time to go shopping every other day or so after work.

And these are mid-west prices.

Lets see, family of four, 1 lbs of ground chuck so each person gets an entire quarter pounder hamburger for dinner, 1.99, 3.00 for the broccoli for a side dish. Oh, don't forget the buns, those are roughly 1.50-2.00 a pack, and milk...well, I don't know how much milk a family of four would consume during dinner, but a half-gallon would get each person 16 oz. of milk. That half gallon is probably closer to a 1.50 when you aren't buying it in bulks of 10.

That's roughly 7.99 to feed a family of four, one meal, every day. Over an hour of your daily labor, pre-tax, if you work minimum wage.

As opposed to, pre-made stuff:

Banquet Crock Pot Classics (40-46 oz) 4.99. Tyson 'Quick n Easy' box chicken, 5 for 10 bucks.

Kroger brand version of Velveeta Mac n' Cheese, 3 for 4 dollars (and it doesn't go bad...)

Ramen is still something ridiculous like 4 for a dollar...

Minadin
10-03-2006, 03:15 PM
Exactly! Why pay for it yourself when you can stick the taxpayers with the bill? http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif

Who said anything about the taxpayers paying for it? Even though I was eligible for things like welfare and medicaid, it never occurred to me to accept government handouts. If you don't have insurance, for whatever reason, you can work out a payment plan with your doctor / hospital / etc. I've done it since then in instances where I didn't want something to go on my insurance. You can still pay for your medical care, in fact you will pay for it, most medical care facilities should at least document you well enough to find you later for collection purposes.

Panamah
10-03-2006, 03:18 PM
What are you going to do though if you should have something really weird happen, like a bad accident, and you awaken to a hospital charge of over $100,000 dollars? That's what is happening to a lot of folks who lose everything.

Minadin
10-03-2006, 03:25 PM
You get sued, by the hospital, there's a judgment against you, and you end up having to pay them back over the course of time as you get money. Or, you file bankruptcy and the hospital takes it as a loss against their profits to avoid paying taxes. Or, they get partially reimbursed by their own insurance company, who does the same thing.

Aidon
10-03-2006, 03:38 PM
Which contradicts Aidon's assertion that two people making minimum wage are poor(not that I necessarily disagree with that).

Minimum wage full time for one person would net 13K. Which itself alone is higher than the poverty level for 2 persons.

Federal minimum wage is 5.15/hour, at 40 hours per week for 52 weeks that comes to 10,712 pre-tax per person. Granted, they will get most of their taxes back at the end of the year, but that still leaves them with a mere 206 dollars a week before taxes...which probably means they end up with roughly 175 bucks a week after their taxes are taken out. Can you imagine trying to raise a family of four on roughly 1400 a month after taxes (both parents working and two children)? A crappy run down 2 bedroom apartment in my part of the nation, alone, is going to cost you 600 a month. One used car at 200 a month (we'll imagine that our public buses, here, are worth a damn, or that one of the parents inherited some beater from someone that they don't have to pay for), insurance for both vehicles? The average for Toledo is 1800 per year for one vehicle. Lets say 100 a month for both vehicles. We're already at 900 a month. Electricity and/or natural gas? Call it a low ball 150 a month for a family of four (probably closer to 200). Fuel? I was spending 100 a month by myself, filling up every two weeks, but I drive a Jeep and that was when gas was 3/gallon. Lets call it 125 a month for two adults. Now we're at 1200 a month. Health insurance? Honestly, I have no idea...but I suspect its going to eat up most of the last 200 a month..., or going without insurance and paying out of pocket for everything (hope your kids don't need braces, pal), leaving us with zero money left for food. No money for clothes. No money for emergencies (such as a vehicle breakdown), no money for a phone of any type. No money to go to school to better your vocational abilities. No money to buy your kids a toy. No money to buy a pack of rubbers so you don't have another kid to drive you further into poverty.

Aidon
10-03-2006, 03:40 PM
You get sued, by the hospital, there's a judgment against you, and you end up having to pay them back over the course of time as you get money. Or, you file bankruptcy and the hospital takes it as a loss against their profits to avoid paying taxes. Or, they get partially reimbursed by their own insurance company, who does the same thing.


Filing bankruptcy will no longer protect you from medical bills, if I recall correctly, thanks to our friends the Republicans who have the compassion of bloodsucking vampires (and not the angsty Ann Rice ones...).

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-03-2006, 03:40 PM
100K is not a bad accident.

A bad accident will set you back easy a Mil in hospital fees.

100K is a hip replacement.

ICU is going to cost you 5K a day just for the bed. Your feedings(TPN) alone can cost you 5K a day. Not including any interventions or therapies, ie the doc, procedures, respiratory therapy and vent, labs and tests, or medicines.

Now those are retail prices, of course; MSRP if you will. And they are high partly because previous patients have skipped out on the tab, you now are stuck with it.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-03-2006, 03:42 PM
Federal minimum wage is 5.15/hour, at 40 hours per week for 52 weeks that comes to 10,712 pre-tax per person. .... No money to buy a pack of rubbers so you don't have another kid to drive you further into poverty.

Can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em.

Aidon
10-03-2006, 04:16 PM
Can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em.

Sometimes the breeding came before the poverty...

Panamah
10-03-2006, 04:18 PM
Guess we'd better not let anyone be a Catholic then.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-03-2006, 04:18 PM
Ya, I agree some times.

Not most of the time.

Gunny Burlfoot
10-03-2006, 04:22 PM
I have read comments regarding what people would do, were they poor, indicating conjecture and theorization, not experience. Further, I read statements by those who were poor and yet somehow grew up lacking basic compassion or empathy for those who have not yet managed to extricate themselves from poverty.

Apparently, your definition of basic compassion, and other people's definition of basic compassion differs. I think, once I retire, I should donate my time to a "poor educational center", if such a thing exists, where I could show true compassion and spend my days showing people a way to get out of poverty with no financial assistance from anyone else. Think about the people who do get their way out of poverty by their own two hands. They are proud of their accomplishment and feel good about themselves afterwards. People that constantly recieve charity over and over suffer from very low self esteem, even if they would never admit it. That's just the way the human psyche works.

Gunny suggests dropping health insurance and praying you don't fall ill, and yet, who here would rely on wishes and dreams for the health of their children? What of those who are now poverty stricken because it was their health insurance dropping them, due to Mom's cancer's, rendering her unable to work a steady job during the treatment that they've just paid for with their third mortgage?

Unfortunately, there's nothing else you can do with health insurance when you're poor except drop it. I didn't have any in college or for years afterwards, and just hoped I never got anything crippling. And 3 mortages is a prime example of a financial decision that everyone that does it has to know will come back and bite them later. Sort of like all the people whining about adjustable rate mortages now that the interest rate is rising.

He suggests that the poor never buy nice things...and yet, in this day and age, fresh produce and healthy meat would fall into that catagory (and yet, those who decry the poor for their obesity, using it as an example of their supposed laziness, are legion). It is suggested that there be no entertainment budget...and yet, what else do you call chrismas (or hannukah) gifts for your children?

Vegatables are extremely cheap. And fresh chicken is nothing like what you describe pricewise. And you do what my grandfather did for his children on his farm. You make the Christmas (or Hannukah) presents by hand. He's been gone for years, yet I still have a cane that he hand carved for me sitting not 3 feet from me, not because I use a cane, but because t's not about how much or little you paid for the gift, but the love that it is meant to symbolize.

How does one budget for vocational training in a marketable skill, when you already have a two year degree as a vet tech, which cost you 25,000 dollars in loans, which gets you a $9.00 an hour job with which to pay for rent, electricity/gas, food, clothes, fuel, clothes for your children and yourself, etc?

Again, poor financial decisions do have long lasting consquences. Fortunately, in this country, which is the greatest country in the world, you can always get another chance to correct your errors. Obviously, vet tech is not the best paying job, so you should look to some other career if the current ones is not meeting your needs. The field of technical service pays well, and I really can't see any HVAC guys standing in the unemployment lines. Especially where I live.

24,000 a day mowing yards...before taxes (more than your standard taxes, mind you, because you work for yourself, normally your employer pays some of the tab). Oh, make sure to budget in the gasoline consumption. Don't forget the car payment on the pickup truck you will need (you don't think you're fitting a push mower, rakes, and various other implements in that '92 escort, do you?). Factor in such miscellenia as repairs on your lawn mower (I've never met a mower that didn't break down at least once in a season).

I said that it was an example, and I never said 24,000 a day. If that were true, I would have quit my job and start mowing grass already. And a push mower and rakes do fit into a hatchback quite easily. There are handlebar kits that are very cheap, that replace the standard handle with a folddown one.

Oh..yeah, and figure out how to get money mowing lawns in February when there's two feet of snow on the ground.

Now you're just being deliberately obtuse. Quite obviously, you would be shoveling their driveways in the winter. Or raking their yards in the fall. Or offering to put extra insulation down in their attics in the cooler months to help lower their electric bills. If you're poor, you need to develop a nimble mind and think of creative things to do that everyone needs, but no one wants to do.


We, as a society, must stamp out this notion that those who are poverty stricken are so because they are shiftless or lazy. When two parents working minimum wage jobs fall solidly below the poverty line...it is our fault, as a society, not theirs. They go to work and put in their 40 hours of labor.

You have a mistaken idea that going into a job and putting in 40 hours is a magic formula to financial prosperity, or at least comfort. I'm not sure who sold you that bill of goods, but it takes more, much more than simply working a set number of hours a week. It is not society's fault, it is not my fault, it is not your fault that the poor exist to this day; the US is the greatest land, with the greatest opportunities, and a chance to restart even if you did screw up. Sure, the poor will have to work harder, and longer, and most importantly, smarter, but they can get themselves out of their dire situation, with perhaps education assistance, and some personal encouragment, perhaps a mentor that got themselves out of the same situations. Everyone has a spark of greatness within them. No one is genetically poor. They are not hopelessly poor, and throwing money at the problem (welfare) is not the answer. We've been doing that as a country for 60 years and I still see there is a poverty problem.

It's true, though, poverty is a very emotional issue. I get fired up about it because I don't think the current system is helping the poor get out of the muck and on the road to a decent income.

Tudamorf
10-03-2006, 04:22 PM
Or, you file bankruptcy and the hospital takes it as a loss against their profits to avoid paying taxes.Hospitals don't just "take" losses. They collect the difference from the paying customers, who get it from their insurance companies, and the insurance companies then raise rates to cover the loss. Many hospitals are nonprofit and thus exempt from the tax benefit of a loss, but even if they aren't, that's still a case of the taxpayers subsidizing your medical care.

Jinjre
10-03-2006, 04:24 PM
http://www.drbukk.com/gmhom/images/ngeorgia.jpg

This may very well fit the following description:

The average poor person in America. (Jan 2004)

Quote:
The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

* Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
* Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
* Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
* The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
* Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
* Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
* Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
* Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

This person may very well own this home. Since they're in Georgia, they may have a window AC unit. The home probably still has more square footage per person than your average apartment in Paris, where population density requires people to live in smaller spaces. They obviously own lots of cars, although I'd hazard a guess that only one of them runs. Ditto with the color tvs, VCRs and DVD players, and stereos.

I went to high school in an area with this kind of poverty. While those statements in the quotes may be true, it does not mean the people are living above the poverty line.

Tudamorf
10-03-2006, 04:27 PM
No money to buy a pack of rubbers so you don't have another kid to drive you further into poverty.I'd gladly send my tax dollars towards a sterilization program for people who insist on screwing like rabbits but can't afford the consequences. I think we could <i>pay</i> them to get sterilized and still save money in the long run.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-03-2006, 04:28 PM
Guess we'd better not let anyone be a Catholic then.
Mormons breed like rabbits too, but they usually can pay for their own feed.


Any culture which propagates itself through unrestricted breeding, and unaccountable reliance on a host....

NM, that sounds like Agent Smith talking. Not to say that that part of his monologue was incorrect.

At least Mormons take care of their own, generally speaking. And have you ever been in their garages...they all have like 5 years of staple foods stored in there.

Gunny Burlfoot
10-03-2006, 05:37 PM
Federal minimum wage is 5.15/hour, at 40 hours per week for 52 weeks that comes to 10,712 pre-tax per person. Granted, they will get most of their taxes back at the end of the year, but that still leaves them with a mere 206 dollars a week before taxes...which probably means they end up with roughly 175 bucks a week after their taxes are taken out. Can you imagine trying to raise a family of four on roughly 1400 a month after taxes (both parents working and two children)?

Minimum wage jobs are supposed to be for entry level new workforce employees. You aren't supposed to be able to raise a family of four on a minimum wage job. So get off the idea that the government mandated minimum wages is some sort of magical guarantee that anyone who works at that level can afford anything beyond food, clothing, and shelter. This whole intellectual exercise is flawed from the start.

But heck, let's run the numbers anyways.

A crappy run down 2 bedroom apartment in my part of the nation, alone, is going to cost you 600 a month.

Wrong.
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/classifieds?Kategori=CLRENT&Start=41
"APTS. 2 brm. $415/mo Heat paid, appl., on bus line, 419-531-4544; after 5pm, 419-867-3413"
And that has heat paid for! and appliances included! And it's on a bus line! Hot diggety dog!

One used car at 200 a month (we'll imagine that our public buses, here, are worth a damn, or that one of the parents inherited some beater from someone that they don't have to pay for), insurance for both vehicles?

200/month? What? I found 3 cars within 25 mi of Toledo for <$900.00 on http://www.domesticsale.com/AutoSearch/ . They all run, according to the ad copy.

Again, you live within your means. Take that 200/month that you WOULD have thrown away as a financed car payment into some large bank's pocket, and put it in a savings account. When the cheapass car dies, you buy another cheapass car. Each car only has to last you 3 months, before your budget allows for it to blow the hell up. If it lasts for more than 3 months, you come out with $200 more each month. So, realistically, you'd put 200/month into the savings account until you reached 1,000, and keep that there for when the cheap car does expire. Then you'd take that 200/month and use it for something like education (I recommend HVAC training). It will run for at least 5 months, if not more. I've bought used cars all my life. They will still run without air conditioning, cruise control, radios, etc.

The average for Toledo is 1800 per year for one vehicle. Lets say 100 a month for both vehicles.
Ok, first price we can agree on. Liablity only costs 50/month in your area.

Apartment = $415 w/heat & appliances
Car = $900 total, buy a different one each year! $75/month
Car Insurance = $ 100/month
So far we're up to $590/month

Electricity and/or natural gas? Call it a low ball 150 a month for a family of four (probably closer to 200).

Er. According to this article, found here:
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050608/NEWS16/506080434/-1/NEWS30

the average electricity bill over 16 cities in and around Toledo was $71.81. Remember, in the above apartment, heat is paid for. So that's 71.81 each month.

Fuel? I was spending 100 a month by myself, filling up every two weeks, but I drive a Jeep and that was when gas was 3/gallon. Lets call it 125 a month for two adults.
Technically, all you're going to be doing is trips to work, with stopping at grocery stores on the way there and back to save trips, but we'll say $125/month, because you'll be taking trips to night classes as well.

So $590.00/month
plus 71.81/month electricity
plus 125.00/month gas

gives 786.81/month. Not 1200/month.

That leaves 470/month to spend on clothes/food/classes. A family of four can easily get buy on 200/month food. I know, I've done it when I was a kid from time to time.

Aidon
10-04-2006, 10:06 AM
Apparently, your definition of basic compassion, and other people's definition of basic compassion differs. I think, once I retire, I should donate my time to a "poor educational center", if such a thing exists, where I could show true compassion and spend my days showing people a way to get out of poverty with no financial assistance from anyone else. Think about the people who do get their way out of poverty by their own two hands. They are proud of their accomplishment and feel good about themselves afterwards. People that constantly recieve charity over and over suffer from very low self esteem, even if they would never admit it. That's just the way the human psyche works.

Noone in America, these days, can get themselves out of poverty with their own two hands. You're smoking all sorts of **** if you think its possible except on the rare exception.

The best most can hope for is that their children manage to do well enough at the ****ty ass public schools they have to attend in order to be compentant enough to make it into and through college...where they will then be able to be the working poor, instead of poverty stricken. Or, maybe, they will be sports stars...



Unfortunately, there's nothing else you can do with health insurance when you're poor except drop it. I didn't have any in college or for years afterwards, and just hoped I never got anything crippling. And 3 mortages is a prime example of a financial decision that everyone that does it has to know will come back and bite them later. Sort of like all the people whining about adjustable rate mortages now that the interest rate is rising.

...bull****. Every college I know offers health insurance included in tuition. The local university mandates its students have health insurance...you can't drop the insurance included in the tuition unless you prove that you are covered by other insurance.

Furthermore...we're talking about families...with children. What kind of asshole country are we that we will let 1 in 10 children in our nation exist without medical coverage? **** that.



Vegatables are extremely cheap. And fresh chicken is nothing like what you describe pricewise. And you do what my grandfather did for his children on his farm. You make the Christmas (or Hannukah) presents by hand. He's been gone for years, yet I still have a cane that he hand carved for me sitting not 3 feet from me, not because I use a cane, but because t's not about how much or little you paid for the gift, but the love that it is meant to symbolize.

Vegatables are not extremely cheap and fresh chicken is exactly the ****ing price I described...I pulled it directly from a local grocery chain. Make presents by hand? Yeah...because your children are going to want a hand carved ****ing cane when the soles of their shoes have gaping holes in them.



Again, poor financial decisions do have long lasting consquences. Fortunately, in this country, which is the greatest country in the world, you can always get another chance to correct your errors. Obviously, vet tech is not the best paying job, so you should look to some other career if the current ones is not meeting your needs. The field of technical service pays well, and I really can't see any HVAC guys standing in the unemployment lines. Especially where I live.

...if everyone could get well paying jobs noone would be below the poverty limit. What kind of heartless ****ing answer is "get a better job"?



I said that it was an example, and I never said 24,000 a day. If that were true, I would have quit my job and start mowing grass already. And a push mower and rakes do fit into a hatchback quite easily. There are handlebar kits that are very cheap, that replace the standard handle with a folddown one.

The day was a typo, for ****s sake.

And no, a push mower, rakes, clippers, edge trimmer, etc etc etc do not fit in a goddamned hatchback. Unless your mower transforms into a robot that will sit in the passenger seat.



Now you're just being deliberately obtuse. Quite obviously, you would be shoveling their driveways in the winter. Or raking their yards in the fall. Or offering to put extra insulation down in their attics in the cooler months to help lower their electric bills. If you're poor, you need to develop a nimble mind and think of creative things to do that everyone needs, but no one wants to do.

...you really are clueless. There are a thousand different snow/lawn removal companies in my town. One of my buddies has one himself. He has the truck and the riding mower and what not. He's upstanding, looks respectable, is a fine white gentleman who is well educated. He barely makes a living for himself (let alone children if he had any).

Do you know what happens in your senario? Poor Joe offers to do it for 40...and so Poor Bob offers to do it for 20...and then Dave the teenager who just needs a bit of spending cash offers to do it for 15 and then noone can afford to live off doing lawns...




You have a mistaken idea that going into a job and putting in 40 hours is a magic formula to financial prosperity, or at least comfort. I'm not sure who sold you that bill of goods, but it takes more, much more than simply working a set number of hours a week.

Bull****. We work more hours, on average, than any nation on this planet. Noone in America who works a full work week should ever live in poverty.

I don't know who sold you this no compassion, "I'm better than you because I managed to not be poor, so buck up kiddo and work harder and you'll make it" load of crap, but it isn't true. We're not a land of opportunity any more. The people that "make it" are one in a million here. Most people live and die in the same economic class they were born in and there isn't a ****ing thing they can realisticallydo to change that. The best they can hope for is that maybe, with luck, their children can bump up a economic class.




It is not society's fault, it is not my fault, it is not your fault that the poor exist to this day; the US is the greatest land, with the greatest opportunities, and a chance to restart even if you did screw up.

It is society's fault. It is your fault, especially, since you seem to think charity or social welfare isn't necessary... The US is the greatest land...and yet we let people live in relative squallor out of sheer lack of compassion. Oh and there is very little chance to restart, even if you didn't screw up and just got screwed.

Sure, the poor will have to work harder, and longer, and most importantly, smarter, but they can get themselves out of their dire situation, with perhaps education assistance, and some personal encouragment, perhaps a mentor that got themselves out of the same situations. Everyone has a spark of greatness within them. No one is genetically poor. They are not hopelessly poor, and throwing money at the problem (welfare) is not the answer. We've been doing that as a country for 60 years and I still see there is a poverty problem.

We've been cutting back social welfare programs since the late 80's. But hey, pull yourself up by the bootstrap works, doesn't it? /smirk.

No, it doesn't. Personal encouragement? Are you ****ing insane? When Baby Tim doesn't have enough mashed carrots to fill his belly enough that he stops crying do you really think personal encouragement is going to help a goddamn thing? "Hey, buck up Kiddo. If you just work harder (maybe work 60's hours a week on three part time minimum wage jobs) you'll be able to feed your baby, if you ever see him.

No, the greatest myth in America is that "everyone has the opportunity to make it". The American Dream is only a dream for the vast majority of Americans. You can work your hands to the bone, in this fine nation, and still be unable to afford the basic standards we should expect every American to afford.

It's true, though, poverty is a very emotional issue. I get fired up about it because I don't think the current system is helping the poor get out of the muck and on the road to a decent income.[/QUOTE]

Aidon
10-04-2006, 10:57 AM
Minimum wage jobs are supposed to be for entry level new workforce employees. You aren't supposed to be able to raise a family of four on a minimum wage job. So get off the idea that the government mandated minimum wages is some sort of magical guarantee that anyone who works at that level can afford anything beyond food, clothing, and shelter. This whole intellectual exercise is flawed from the start.

Supposed to be don't make it so, brotha.

Supposed to be for entry level new workforce employees, perhaps, but guess what...it takes far more than minimum wage to have a real wage that will get you above the poverty level. The truth is, if you're a single parent earning even 9 bucks an hour...you will bring in less than 17k a year. The real cost for meeting the basic needs of a two person family is about 27k. Heaven help if you actually have two children.


But heck, let's run the numbers anyways.



Wrong.
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/classifieds?Kategori=CLRENT&Start=41
"APTS. 2 brm. $415/mo Heat paid, appl., on bus line, 419-531-4544; after 5pm, 419-867-3413"
And that has heat paid for! and appliances included! And it's on a bus line! Hot diggety dog!

Ever ridden Toledo buses? You'll lose your job if you rely on them Guaranteed. That's why you never see people with a steady job riding them. Hot diggety dog, you ****tard. Btw, you'll notice they don't list where that apartment is. I'd be very scared for any 2 bedroom apartment for 415/mo. Something is wrong.

I pay 700 a month for a nice lil 40 year old condo (between mortgage and condo fees) which I put down 80 of the 109k cost. If I were renting it I'd be paying probably 850 a month (its in a nice part of town, is in good shape, and came with new appliance, heating, etc etc). 600/mo for a 2 bedroom in the Toledo area isn't wrong. Its a very real price. Of course...that one will only work for about 10 years before you'll need a three bedroom apartment if the two children happen to be different sexes. If you really start to nitpick, you'll find I was very conservative in costs and situation.



200/month? What? I found 3 cars within 25 mi of Toledo for <$900.00 on http://www.domesticsale.com/AutoSearch/ . They all run, according to the ad copy.

6k for a car isn't abnormal or extravegant. If you buy a 900 dollar car...you're going to either A) Buy another 900 car within a year or B) pay a couple grand to fix it.

Again, you live within your means. Take that 200/month that you WOULD have thrown away as a financed car payment into some large bank's pocket, and put it in a savings account. When the cheapass car dies, you buy another cheapass car. Each car only has to last you 3 months, before your budget allows for it to blow the hell up. If it lasts for more than 3 months, you come out with $200 more each month. So, realistically, you'd put 200/month into the savings account until you reached 1,000, and keep that there for when the cheap car does expire. Then you'd take that 200/month and use it for something like education (I recommend HVAC training). It will run for at least 5 months, if not more. I've bought used cars all my life. They will still run without air conditioning, cruise control, radios, etc.

I guess they don't teach multiplication in HVAC training? 200 per Month * 3 mo = 600 dollars. You just lost them 300 dollars they couldn't afford to lose, hot diggity dog!

it would take 5 months for them to recoup the 900 they paid for the piece of **** car...oh by the by, winters in Toledo can be vicious. I hope that car can run in the cold and snow...for 900 bucks, it probably won't though. My 107k 95 Chevy Blazer sold for 2750..with the understanding that there was nothing I could do if something went wrong with it (as was bound to happen, as I had a 300-700 dollar repair bill at least once a year since '03). It was a piece of ****.

I want to know what ****ing piece of **** car you think they are going to get for 900 bucks that is going to be reliable enough to actually make them money?

Even, of course, if these 900 dollar cars were magically delicious and weren't better off sold for scrap...you found three of them. I can guarantee you there are more than three people in Toledo living below the poverty line.




Ok, first price we can agree on. Liablity only costs 50/month in your area.

Apartment = $415 w/heat & appliances
Car = $900 total, buy a different one each year! $75/month
Car Insurance = $ 100/month
So far we're up to $590/month

Wow, you're full of **** across the board! Hot Diggity Dog!



Er. According to this article, found here:
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050608/NEWS16/506080434/-1/NEWS30

the average electricity bill over 16 cities in and around Toledo was $71.81. Remember, in the above apartment, heat is paid for. So that's 71.81 each month.

I pay between 80-200 per month for a 2 bedroom, all electricity condo. It depends on the weather. Spring and Fall no AC no Heat necessary. Summer and Winter requires A/C or Heat respectively. Electric heat was cheaper than gas this past winter here, iirc.

Of course the average for Toledo was 83 and change in that article. Do you know how far away Marion or Akron (some of those '16 surrounding cities') are? Once again...you pull loads of **** forth from thine ass, hot diggity dog!


Technically, all you're going to be doing is trips to work, with stopping at grocery stores on the way there and back to save trips, but we'll say $125/month, because you'll be taking trips to night classes as well.

Do you really thinkg all you're going to be doing is trips to work and the grocery stor and night classes? (Oh, btw, who the **** is watching the two children while you're at night classes until 9 at night?) I want to live in your dream world, hot diggity dog!

So $590.00/month
plus 71.81/month electricity
plus 125.00/month gas

gives 786.81/month. Not 1200/month.

Again, dream world. Hot diggity dog!

Move to Toledo and live on 768.81 a month for what we've described so far. You won't. Of course...I was also being quite conservative. For instance, we assumed one parent was not paying for a car (unlikely). The 125 for gas was quite a conservative estimate, especially if you have them driving the magical mystery tour 900 dollar car which will almost certain get at least more than 10 mpg, hot diggity dog!

That leaves 470/month to spend on clothes/food/classes. A family of four can easily get buy on 200/month food. I know, I've done it when I was a kid from time to time.

You can't feed four people on 200 a month here, not if you want them to be even reasonably nourished. But hey, what's a little scurvy?! Hot Diggity Dog! (Yes...there are people, in Ohio, who come down with scurvy, because they don't get enough fruit and vegetables. They are all poverty stricken. Doctors bitch because they never bothered learning about scurvy...its not supposed to happen except if your on a ****ing 17th century sailing vessel that was ill prepared).

Of course, you won't have 470 a month in the real world.

And, of course, as I stated before, the real cost for a family of 2 is 27k per year...and 9 bucks an hour for that single parent will net less than 17k, so essentially, your ****ed in America either way.

You're an asshole for suggesting these people are just shiftless, stupid, and lazy. You're an even bigger asshole for thinking you can live on what you pretended it would cost.

You're a bigger asshole for simply having zero compassion for people who work hard every day to scrape out a living and still have to rely on welfare because people like yourself think its A-OK to pay people squat.

Panamah
10-04-2006, 11:34 AM
Don't forget to add in child care, which is probably more than one person makes at minimum wage. So in reality, there is only going to be one parent working in that household, since it is cheaper to stay home and look after the kids versus child care. Child care costs on the average about $4,000 - $6,000 a year, probably per child.

Talyena Trueheart
10-04-2006, 12:14 PM
Don't forget to add in child care, which is probably more than one person makes at minimum wage. So in reality, there is only going to be one parent working in that household, since it is cheaper to stay home and look after the kids versus child care. Child care costs on the average about $4,000 - $6,000 a year, probably per child.

Child care is tax deductable at higher percentages the less you make. And a family of four making say 20k per year will get a tax return from credits in the neighborhood of at least $5,000-6,000 above and beyond all payroll deductions.

And everyone seems to be forgetting all the other benefits the poor can recieve. When I was between jobs living in Ft. Worth, we got on food stamps for a couple of months and had more money to spend on groceries than we knew what to do with. Even now we don't spend as much on groceries per month as what we got on food stamps back then. There is also insurance that most states provide for families. And children can get pretty much full coverage insurance. There is also free and reduced lunches at school, and the free lunch program extends well above the poverty line with lower middle class getting reduced lunches. There is WIC for children below the age of five. And there is housing assistance available as well. The energy companies have programs to help out with low income electric and gas needs. There are home supply companies around here that give out free supplies every fall to help weather proof your home for those in need. There is even a program here to provide coats to school children who can't afford them every year. And let's not get started on the assistance provided by churches and other charity organizations. Many of these expenses people are trying to pin on the poor just don't apply to those who seek the help and benefits available to them.

Panamah
10-04-2006, 12:23 PM
Uh... I don't think those living at or even close to the poverty level pay taxes. So how does that help them?

Talyena Trueheart
10-04-2006, 12:28 PM
Uh... I don't think those living at or even close to the poverty level pay taxes. So how does that help them?

They get money back in tax credits above and beyond what they do or do not pay in taxes.

Aidon
10-04-2006, 01:33 PM
Don't forget to add in child care, which is probably more than one person makes at minimum wage. So in reality, there is only going to be one parent working in that household, since it is cheaper to stay home and look after the kids versus child care. Child care costs on the average about $4,000 - $6,000 a year, probably per child.

It costs my friend 12k a year for child care for the first 18 months, then it dropped to 9 or 10k (I forget). Granted they went looking for very nice day care near his work, and this was in Columbus. You can probably get ghetto day care for 5 Gs a year in Toledo, I'd guess.

Aidon
10-04-2006, 01:38 PM
Child care is tax deductable at higher percentages the less you make. And a family of four making say 20k per year will get a tax return from credits in the neighborhood of at least $5,000-6,000 above and beyond all payroll deductions.

First of all, this doesn't help for the weekly expenses. Secondly, a family of four making 22K a year isn't getting 5-6k back in taxes. They will get what they paid for taxes back, yes. Maybe a bit more.

And everyone seems to be forgetting all the other benefits the poor can recieve. When I was between jobs living in Ft. Worth, we got on food stamps for a couple of months and had more money to spend on groceries than we knew what to do with. Even now we don't spend as much on groceries per month as what we got on food stamps back then. There is also insurance that most states provide for families. And children can get pretty much full coverage insurance. There is also free and reduced lunches at school, and the free lunch program extends well above the poverty line with lower middle class getting reduced lunches. There is WIC for children below the age of five. And there is housing assistance available as well. The energy companies have programs to help out with low income electric and gas needs. There are home supply companies around here that give out free supplies every fall to help weather proof your home for those in need. There is even a program here to provide coats to school children who can't afford them every year. And let's not get started on the assistance provided by churches and other charity organizations. Many of these expenses people are trying to pin on the poor just don't apply to those who seek the help and benefits available to them.


All of these things are programs you ****ing Republicans are trying to ****can...you bitch about paying these social welfare programs...and then you turn around and bitch when people suggest that if the minimum wage was a real wage, people wouldn't have to rely on welfare.

It seems the only ****ing welfare your ilk are interested in is corporate welfare. You'll give huge tax breaks to the oil companies and pharmaceutical companies and whatnot, and then complain about those shiftless lazy ass poor folks who dare to ask for a real wage, or dare to use the social welfare programs you are trying to cut in order to give Enrons more tax breaks.

You bitch when they ask for enough money to get off welfare. You bitch when they are on welfare. Would you prefer they just starve in the streets (so long as they tastefully starve far from your streets, though)?

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-04-2006, 01:54 PM
What do you want to raise the minimum wage to?

I would suggest 50 bucks an hour.

Make it a 100 bucks an hour.

Doesn't matter what it is.

Pick a number, any number.



My best friend is a CSM(customer service manager) at WalMart, she makes 10 bucks an hour now. Base hourly there is 8.10 and hour. Minimum wage here is 6.75 an hour, soon to go up to 8 bucks(thank The Arnold).

If minimum wage goes up to 8 bucks. Starting wage at WalMart will go up to 10 bucks. And CSMs will make 12 bucks. Where does all that money come from? Businesses aren't going to eat, they have never since I have been alive. They pass it all, and usually a little more, to the consumer.

I don't even know why business oppose increasing the minimum wage, I really don't. It is as if they have to put on a little false show for it, out of principle or something.

All that additional cost to the consumer increases the cost of living. The person making 10 bucks(our typical poor WalMart employee) and is broke will buy the stuff at WalMart(or whereever) at the increased price, and will have not gained anything. They will be just as broke and poor as they were when they were making 8.10. Because their buying power is the same.

Well of course there is that short time before everything equalizes, I suppose some may profit during this time. It takes a month at most for it to all stabilize back out. And would fvck up foriegn money markets for a short time.

Raise it to 100 bucks an hour, it does not matter. That pizza you buy now for 10 bucks at Papa Murphy's(which you can buy with your Food Stamps card), is now gonna cost you 150. That Big Mac Meal which is 5 bucks now, will cost you 80 bucks.

I use to get all cramped up thinking how stupid that whole debate was. Now I just enjoy the show. Politicians blow smoke and raise the minimum wage, collect the vote, and the ignorant workers are all tranquilized into submission and continued apathy(instead of revolt, I suppose).

Panamah
10-04-2006, 01:58 PM
If minimum wage goes up to 8 bucks. Starting wage at WalMart will go up to 10 bucks. And CSMs will make 12 bucks. Where does all that money come from? Businesses aren't going to eat, they have never since I have been alive. They pass it all, and usually a little more, to the consumer.
I propose we take it out of CEO pay.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The median pay packages of chief executives rose by 16 percent in 2005, the third consecutive year of double-digit increases, according to an annual CEO compensation survey.

According to the survey of 1,388 CEO's pay packages by The Corporate Library, Barry Diller, chief executive of IAC/InterActiveCorp, led the list with total compensation of more than $295 million.

The biggest rates of pay increase were seen with S&P MidCap companies with a rise of close to 19 percent over 2004 levels according to The Corporate Library.

But the overall rate of increase in 2005 is down from 30 percent in 2004. In 2003 the rate of increase was 15 percent.

"While increases have fallen from the exceptionally high rates found in last year's survey, the rate of growth is still very substantial, said Paul Hodgson, research associate at The Corporate Library.

The average CEO of a Standard & Poor's 500 company made $11.75 million in total compensation in 2005, according to a preliminary analysis by The Corporate Library. And that's just their annual take. At a time when most working families are looking at shrinking retirement nest eggs, many CEOs also have negotiated golden retirements for themselves. Here are the biggest CEO pensions:

http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-04-2006, 02:07 PM
Well CEOs are employees too, you do know that.

The owners of a company negotiate the best price for that position.

Besides the numbers of CEOs who make that amount of money are like 400 people in the US.

Most CEOs of companies and corporations make rather modest salaries considering their responsibilites. I have the numbers in a book, I can re-type them here if you like.

If you want to discuss some grand social injustice based on what 400 total people make, go ahead, I think that is a null issue.

If you feel that it is such a pressing need, that you remove the freedom of owners of companies to negotiate with an employee what they are worth to a company, go for it. You have done it for minimum wage, doing it for other employees makes perfect sense. Putting a cap on what employees can make, makes great sense. But don't just restrict it to those few 400 people.

Cap wages of all employees, in every company. That will keep all the prices at WalMart down for you.

Aidon
10-04-2006, 02:14 PM
What do you want to raise the minimum wage to?

I would suggest 50 bucks an hour.

Make it a 100 bucks an hour.

Doesn't matter what it is.

Pick a number, any number.



My best friend is a CSM(customer service manager) at WalMart, she makes 10 bucks an hour now. Base hourly there is 8.10 and hour. Minimum wage here is 6.75 an hour, soon to go up to 8 bucks(thank The Arnold).

If minimum wage goes up to 8 bucks. Starting wage at WalMart will go up to 10 bucks. And CSMs will make 12 bucks. Where does all that money come from? Businesses aren't going to eat, they have never since I have been alive. They pass it all, and usually a little more, to the consumer.

I don't even know why business oppose increasing the minimum wage, I really don't. It is as if they have to put on a little false show for it, out of principle or something.

All that additional cost to the consumer increases the cost of living. The person making 10 bucks(our typical poor WalMart employee) and is broke will buy the stuff at WalMart(or whereever) at the increased price, and will have not gained anything. They will be just as broke and poor as they were when they were making 8.10. Because their buying power is the same.

If Wal-Mart increased all of their hourly employees wages by one dollar per hour, tomorrow, they could recoup the increased cost in labor by raising the price of their goods by one penny per dollar. A 30 dollar TV at Wal-Mart would have to cost 30.30.

This notion that increasing minimum wage only increases inflation and the cost of living is bull**** and lies.

MadroneDorf
10-04-2006, 02:18 PM
High CEO pay is a bad thing when the company is not being profitable, asking employees to take paycuts, or loosing marketshare or being stagnant.

The highest paid CEO was Exxon...

They had profits of THIRTY SIX BILLION DOLLARS, while that may annoy consumer wise, from a business perspective well, if your the most profitable company in the world then well the CEO must be doing things well, so I have no problem.

Its cases like home depot thats bad, when CEO makes a ton of money, but the company is doing poorly that is bad.

Aidon
10-04-2006, 02:20 PM
High CEO pay is a bad thing when the company is not being profitable, asking employees to take paycuts, or loosing marketshare or being stagnant.

The highest paid CEO was Exxon...

They had profits of THIRTY SIX BILLION DOLLARS, while that may annoy consumer wise, from a business perspective well, if your the most profitable company in the world then well the CEO must be doing things well, so I have no problem.

Its cases like home depot thats bad, when CEO makes a ton of money, but the company is doing poorly that is bad.

The CEO of Exxon should be imprisoned for price gouging (which is illegal).

And the list of Republican politicians who should be imprisoned for pandering has to be huge.

Tudamorf
10-04-2006, 02:26 PM
What do you want to raise the minimum wage to?

Doesn't matter what it is.Sure it does. The minimum wage compresses the gap between the rich and poor. It's a pure anti-capitalism measure. Raising it affects the poor workers' income far more than it does the rich workers'. Your model of "raising the minimum wage by X% simply places a constant X% bias on the entire economy" is simplistic and wrong.

Here's a report describing some of the effects, if you're interested (note the differences in the way poor and rich are affected): http://www.epinet.org/briefingpapers/1995_bp_who_wins.pdf

Panamah
10-04-2006, 02:35 PM
There is no one that deserves to get paid thousands of times what the average worker is being paid. These huge salaries are a result of CEO's being on each other's compensation boards. You wash my back, I'll wash yours.

Most of these clowns are getting these paychecks, not because they're brilliant, strong leaders, but because they're tall, have good heads of hair, and know how to schmooze.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-04-2006, 02:36 PM
Every additional dollar spent on labor will be passed on in the price of the goods.

WalMart runs at about 9% profit. Corporate will increase their profit margin accordingly. Will just make it 10 for simplification.

Example:

Gross cost of running Walmart is $10 per year.
Net profit is $1.
Net operating cost of running is $11 per year.
Increase the cost of gross by increasing labor $1.

Gross cost of running Walmart is now $11 per year.
Net profit raised by $1.10.
Net operating cost of running Walmart is now $12.10 per year.

That is what the consumer is going to pay totally, $12.10 per year for what was $11 per year.

It really is not helpful to discuss actual individual items at Walmart(like your TV set), many of the items are sold below cost. I worked in Chemicals, and most of the parts cost was higher than retail price. And that is not counting Walmart additional overhead, like paying me to stock shelves, etc. Cost of Downey Softener for example was 30% higher than our retail. Clorox bleach was like 50%.

That is what I'm saying, I don't know why companies, say WalMart object to raises in the minimum wage. They will make more money, and the consumer has to pay it all, the increased wages(labor), and the increased profit.

The interesting dynamic, is that WalMart customers are poor people. Rich people don't really shop at WalMart. So that additional charge that $2.10 per year is going to be paid by poor people, who are making minimum wage. The new minimum wage, of course. But they are still poor, because everything they buy from any store they shop at has gone up.

MadroneDorf
10-04-2006, 02:37 PM
The CEO of Exxon should be imprisoned for price gouging (which is illegal).

And the list of Republican politicians who should be imprisoned for pandering has to be huge.

I said outside being a consumer (I guess I should have put a civilian too)

My point is when a company has as much growth/profit as Exxon, that the CEO should be barrelling in the cash.

Its when CEO's are not doing a good job that they shouldnt be getting a ton of cash.

CEO pay needs to be more performance based, if they are performing badly, the CEO should not be taking home a ton of money, but if they perform exceptionall well, then taking home obscene amounts of money isnt a bad thing.

Tudamorf
10-04-2006, 02:40 PM
That is what the consumer is going to pay totally, $12.10 per year for what was $11 per year.I'll simplify it for you: the poor guy just got a 10% raise by law, while the rich guy didn't. Let's say the goods go up by 10% too (which is wrong, but it's a worst case scenario). Now the gap between the poor guy and the rich guy is smaller. Instant socialism.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-04-2006, 02:42 PM
Sure it does. The minimum wage compresses the gap between the rich and poor. It's a pure anti-capitalism measure. Raising it affects the poor workers' income far more than it does the rich workers'. Your model of "raising the minimum wage by X% simply places a constant X% bias on the entire economy" is simplistic and wrong.

Here's a report describing some of the effects, if you're interested (note the differences in the way poor and rich are affected): http://www.epinet.org/briefingpapers/1995_bp_who_wins.pdf

Gimme a break.

If I'm higher level worker, say an electrician, or a plumber. Skilled labor.

And my lunches are now costing 7 bucks instead of 5 bucks. My childcare has increased because min wage has increased. I am going to raise my prices.

But I am not just going to increase it a dollar an hour. I make 50 bucks an hour now, I'm going to charge 55, or 60 bucks an hour for my time now.

My customers, people who make more money than I do Accountants, Doctors, Lawyers, Writers, Owners of companies will pay me that difference.

And because all of their expenses have gone up, they will increase their prices.

Lawyers who make 250 an hour now, will just increase theirs to 300 bucks an hours. Etc. Etc. on up it goes.

MadroneDorf
10-04-2006, 02:43 PM
Most of these clowns are getting these paychecks, not because they're brilliant, strong leaders, but because they're tall, have good heads of hair, and know how to schmooze.

So if a CEO is short fat and balding he deserves his paycheck then?

Panamah
10-04-2006, 02:50 PM
So if a CEO is short fat and balding he deserves his paycheck then?
He might have actually been hired for his abilities! But like I said before, no one is worth the millions (sometimes billions) these guys are raking in.

MadroneDorf
10-04-2006, 02:52 PM
He might have actually been hired for his abilities! But like I said before, no one is worth the millions (sometimes billions) these guys are raking in.

So like this guy?

http://www.biginsiders.org/images/mn_enronlaycuffed02.jpg

PS I'd be hard pressed to find someone raking in "billions" except for people who founded a company, or got in Early.

Panamah
10-04-2006, 02:53 PM
LOL! You got me!

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-04-2006, 02:59 PM
I'll simplify it for you: the poor guy just got a 10% raise by law, while the rich guy didn't. Let's say the goods go up by 10% too (which is wrong, but it's a worst case scenario). Now the gap between the poor guy and the rich guy is smaller. Instant socialism.

But the rich guy increases his cost by asking for a raise, by charging more for his services.

He owns something the poor guy does not, knowledge. And can now charge more for it, because the poor guy does not have it.

Instant rebalancing.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-04-2006, 03:02 PM
There is no one that deserves to get paid thousands of times what the average worker is being paid. These huge salaries are a result of CEO's being on each other's compensation boards. You wash my back, I'll wash yours.

Most of these clowns are getting these paychecks, not because they're brilliant, strong leaders, but because they're tall, have good heads of hair, and know how to schmooze.

There are like 400 people in the US that fall into this category.

How about looking at the Entertainment industry? Sports players, actors, and directors make more than these CEOs, and there are tons more of them.

Panamah
10-04-2006, 03:05 PM
There's a lot more than 400 of them. Sure, it isn't EVERY corporation, but certainly just about every national corporation and every American based international corporation does it. I'd say when your revenue starts to approach $100 million CEO pay starts to get outrageous.

The entertainer/sports star doesn't enter into this conversation since they're not supervising or controlling the pay of thousands of workers beneath them. Deflect, deflect.

Pay for Performance
According to Business Week, the average CEO of a major corporation made 42 times the average hourly worker's pay in 1980. By 1990 that had almost doubled to 85 times. In 2000, the average CEO salary reached an unbelievable 531 times that of the average hourly worker.

And here's an article from Motley Fool that address this: http://www.fool.com/Rogue/1997/Rogue970905.htm

Baseball fans often marvel at and complain about the salaries paid some superstars. The best that can be said about such deals, though, is that the stars aren't literally paying themselves. The same cannot really be said of corporate executives. Robert Monks, a principal of Lens Inc. and a trailblazing reformer of corporate governance practices, recently told the Times that executives manage to steal away with such lucrative pay packages "only because chief executives are paying themselves. They have all this diaphanous language about performance and all these committee reports on how pay was determined, but the simple truth is that executives are setting their own pay."

If you are a shareholder or an employee of a public company, a CEO who pays himself more than he's worth is ultimately taking money out of your pocket. Given that options packages already granted are expected to dilute corporate earnings in some sectors by as much as 29%, the chances are good you're being robbed blind.

Aidon
10-04-2006, 03:06 PM
Every additional dollar spent on labor will be passed on in the price of the goods.

WalMart runs at about 9% profit. Corporate will increase their profit margin accordingly. Will just make it 10 for simplification.

Example:

Gross cost of running Walmart is $10 per year.
Net profit is $1.
Net operating cost of running is $11 per year.
Increase the cost of gross by increasing labor $1.

Gross cost of running Walmart is now $11 per year.
Net profit raised by $1.10.
Net operating cost of running Walmart is now $12.10 per year.

That is what the consumer is going to pay totally, $12.10 per year for what was $11 per year.

It really is not helpful to discuss actual individual items at Walmart(like your TV set), many of the items are sold below cost. I worked in Chemicals, and most of the parts cost was higher than retail price. And that is not counting Walmart additional overhead, like paying me to stock shelves, etc. Cost of Downey Softener for example was 30% higher than our retail. Clorox bleach was like 50%.

That is what I'm saying, I don't know why companies, say WalMart object to raises in the minimum wage. They will make more money, and the consumer has to pay it all, the increased wages(labor), and the increased profit.

The interesting dynamic, is that WalMart customers are poor people. Rich people don't really shop at WalMart. So that additional charge that $2.10 per year is going to be paid by poor people, who are making minimum wage. The new minimum wage, of course. But they are still poor, because everything they buy from any store they shop at has gone up.

...

If it cost 30% more to make Downy than it sells for, Downy would cease to exist.

I call hoodoo on your voodoo econ.

Talyena Trueheart
10-04-2006, 03:08 PM
First of all, this doesn't help for the weekly expenses. Secondly, a family of four making 22K a year isn't getting 5-6k back in taxes. They will get what they paid for taxes back, yes. Maybe a bit more.

Ever heard of the EIC? Stands for earned income credit. It is an actual credit added to those who make a lower income. It starts somewhere around 30k for a family of four and increases as the income goes down to a certain point. Same thing with a child tax credit. Between those two, lower income families with children easily bring in thousands more than they pay in over the year. In the past I have cleared more than $4k even after subtracting ALL deductions paid to the government, and the child tax credits have increased and had the cap raised since then. You see, credits don't just reduce what you would have to pay, they count as taxes already paid so you actually get that money back when you don't make enough to pay taxes.


All of these things are programs you ****ing Republicans are trying to ****can...you bitch about paying these social welfare programs...and then you turn around and bitch when people suggest that if the minimum wage was a real wage, people wouldn't have to rely on welfare.

It seems the only ****ing welfare your ilk are interested in is corporate welfare. You'll give huge tax breaks to the oil companies and pharmaceutical companies and whatnot, and then complain about those shiftless lazy ass poor folks who dare to ask for a real wage, or dare to use the social welfare programs you are trying to cut in order to give Enrons more tax breaks.

You bitch when they ask for enough money to get off welfare. You bitch when they are on welfare. Would you prefer they just starve in the streets (so long as they tastefully starve far from your streets, though)?

Funny since most of those things have increased under the Bush administration. And most republicans aren't against most of them because they only go to people who are actually working. It is the handouts to those who can work but don't that republicans want to see reduced. Under Bush child tax credits increased, the marriage penalty went away, and thousands of families who used to pay taxes no longer do (not to mention those who don't pay taxes even getting more back).

I have never seen a republican call for ending WIC. I have seen them ask for more control of food stamps, but only to ensure they are being used as intended and not for junk food or worse, being traded for cigarettes, alcohol, or drugs. And it is hard to accuse republicans of trying to do away with tax credits when they have actually increased them.

Aidon
10-04-2006, 03:10 PM
Gimme a break.

If I'm higher level worker, say an electrician, or a plumber. Skilled labor.

And my lunches are now costing 7 bucks instead of 5 bucks. My childcare has increased because min wage has increased. I am going to raise my prices.

But I am not just going to increase it a dollar an hour. I make 50 bucks an hour now, I'm going to charge 55, or 60 bucks an hour for my time now.

My customers, people who make more money than I do Accountants, Doctors, Lawyers, Writers, Owners of companies will pay me that difference.

And because all of their expenses have gone up, they will increase their prices.

Lawyers who make 250 an hour now, will just increase theirs to 300 bucks an hours. Etc. Etc. on up it goes.

Your econ is wrong...and full of ****..and based on faulty premises.

Your lunch will not magically cost an extra two bucks.

Your attorney will not start charging you 300/hour because Jose down at wal-mart is making 6.50 instead of 5.15.

Just because Jose is making 6.50 instead of 5.15 now is not a valid reason for Bob over in the mail room making 11.00 to suddenly ask for 12.35. That's faulty logic.

If I'm the boss, I'm going to tell Bob no, when he asks for a comensurate raise for no reason other than the minimum wage people got a raise by law.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-04-2006, 03:14 PM
...

If it cost 30% more to make Downy than it sells for, Downy would cease to exist.

I call hoodoo on your voodoo econ.

Why? If WalMart continues to buy it.

Actually it costs a lot more than 30%, when you factor in Walmart's overhead, like I said.


Walmart just sells other stuff at a higher mark up to make up for the difference. If one has run a business, you know how that works? That is typically called a "loss leader".

Talyena Trueheart
10-04-2006, 03:16 PM
Wal-Mart already pays well above minimum wage. Even where I live with the low cost of living. All raising the minimum wage would do for Wal-Mart employees is push them closer to making minimum wage.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-04-2006, 03:20 PM
Your econ is wrong...and full of ****..and based on faulty premises.
No premise, just real life.

Your lunch will not magically cost an extra two bucks.
Of course it will. If I am buying my lunch from a fast food chain, they have to add the additional labor cost to the meal, plus their increased profit margin.

Your attorney will not start charging you 300/hour because Jose down at wal-mart is making 6.50 instead of 5.15.
Not instantly, no. It will take a couple of months for that to work up to him. For people who do not set their own prices(professionals), they will usually have to wait until their 6th month review.

Just because Jose is making 6.50 instead of 5.15 now is not a valid reason for Bob over in the mail room making 11.00 to suddenly ask for 12.35. That's faulty logic.
Jose price goes up, which is bumps up Mary's, who was once below Bob, who now is making less than Mary, and Bob askes for a raise(or the management will just give it, to conserve morale).

If I'm the boss, I'm going to tell Bob no, when he asks for a comensurate raise for no reason other than the minimum wage people got a Then you will have a pissed off employee on your hands.

If Jose now makes as much as Mary, and Mary was making more, she's going to get pissed off if you don't give her a raise. And when Mary gets a raise, that is going to piss off Bob, because he use to make more than her, her responsibilities are less than his, and she's NOW making as much as he is.

He is going to be outraged and livid if he doesn't get a raise.

Aidon
10-04-2006, 03:41 PM
Ever heard of the EIC? Stands for earned income credit. It is an actual credit added to those who make a lower income. It starts somewhere around 30k for a family of four and increases as the income goes down to a certain point. Same thing with a child tax credit. Between those two, lower income families with children easily bring in thousands more than they pay in over the year. In the past I have cleared more than $4k even after subtracting ALL deductions paid to the government, and the child tax credits have increased and had the cap raised since then. You see, credits don't just reduce what you would have to pay, they count as taxes already paid so you actually get that money back when you don't make enough to pay taxes.

I know what a credit is, you condescending bitch.

I also know you don't bring in an extra 6k beyond your taxes in credits.

EIC gets you a few hundred dollars...(it got me 63 bucks last year because of a pay anomoly in which I was having taxes withheld at my new tax bracket, but didn't actually make enough in the year to meet that tax bracket. New job started in Sept)

I also know that if you got 6k at the end of year, that still doesn't help you come up with that extra 300-400 dollars you needed every month just to make ends meet. Instead, you're in debt at userous rates so that the 3-5 thousand dollars you had to put on a credit card (if you were lucky enough to get one) is now 20% more. Of course a family in that position isn't getting credit cards...instead they have to take loans from the cash checking places where their interest is closer to 25-50% depending on how shifty the place and what the laws are in their state.



Funny since most of those things have increased under the Bush administration. And most republicans aren't against most of them because they only go to people who are actually working. It is the handouts to those who can work but don't that republicans want to see reduced. Under Bush child tax credits increased, the marriage penalty went away, and thousands of families who used to pay taxes no longer do (not to mention those who don't pay taxes even getting more back).

Hello, there never was a marriage penalty. Married people have always payed less in taxes than single people. What ****ing marriage penalty? Lies.

child tax credit increased by what? Virtually nothing. Meanwhile federal student loan programs were ****ing gutted, so that the poor can't even hope their children get out of the cycle of poverty through education.

Hand-outs to those who can work but don't? Newflash, most people work in America. Most people want to work in America. Some 93% of all Americans able to work do work. There are very few handouts being given to "shiftless lazy" poor, despite what you animals try to convince everyone in America.

Aidon
10-04-2006, 03:44 PM
Why? If WalMart continues to buy it.

Then Downy isn't selling for 30% less than it costs to make. It may resell for less, but that's something else.

Walmart just sells other stuff at a higher mark up to make up for the difference. If one has run a business, you know how that works? That is typically called a "loss leader".

Yes, I know what a loss leader is. I also know that trying to put that into an economic question regarding wages is crap, since, as you said, its made up by other products.

Aidon
10-04-2006, 03:48 PM
Wal-Mart already pays well above minimum wage. Even where I live with the low cost of living. All raising the minimum wage would do for Wal-Mart employees is push them closer to making minimum wage.

Well above minimum wage eh?

Maybe when looking at wal-marts nationwide average and comparing it to the federal minimum wage.

Do I need to explain how that doesn't really work though (Hint, it has to do with state minimum wage imbalances and the fact that its an average).

Then, of course, there is the fact that Wal-Mart is currently trying to expand from 30% part time labor to 40% part time labor, so as to decrease benefit costs yet further. A seperate issue, but one that only hurts the poor who rely on Wal-Mart for a wage.

Panamah
10-04-2006, 03:54 PM
What isn't immediately obvious is how much of a credit you get if you don't pay any taxes. Doesn't sound like it would be enough to cover child care costs for a year.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-04-2006, 04:01 PM
Then Downy isn't selling for 30% less than it costs to make. It may resell for less, but that's something else.
It's retail price is 30% less than what WalMart buys it for. I don't know how else you want that explained.



Yes, I know what a loss leader is. I also know that trying to put that into an economic question regarding wages is crap, since, as you said, its made up by other products.
That was an example of how you can't use your hypothetical TV as an example, that's all. I said that. It has NO bearing on the discussion regarding minimum wage.

Every dollar of wage will be amortized out into the price of every good and service that is purchased. You discovered that when you were 8 and your Mom got mad at you for charging too low at your lemonade stand. You have to pass the cost on to the customer, otherwise you are working for charity(ie losing money). You thought you were raking in the dough, because you have more money than you did before, but you did not figure in the real parts cost, nor your time into the cost of each glass.

Your lemonade stand only had one product to pass the cost on. Walmart has millions of different SKUS to do it with. But that does not make any difference, every dollar increase is going to be passed on. Walmart's own brand of bleach, the whole Equate line of products are very very profitable for them; even though they are substantially less than name brand. Double, triple, 400% profit to make up the loss on the name brand items they sell at a loss. It all evens out, and the customer(who is also a minimum wage worker) is doing the paying.

Talyena Trueheart
10-04-2006, 04:27 PM
I know what a credit is, you condescending bitch.

I also know you don't bring in an extra 6k beyond your taxes in credits.

EIC gets you a few hundred dollars...(it got me 63 bucks last year because of a pay anomoly in which I was having taxes withheld at my new tax bracket, but didn't actually make enough in the year to meet that tax bracket. New job started in Sept)

I also know that if you got 6k at the end of year, that still doesn't help you come up with that extra 300-400 dollars you needed every month just to make ends meet. Instead, you're in debt at userous rates so that the 3-5 thousand dollars you had to put on a credit card (if you were lucky enough to get one) is now 20% more. Of course a family in that position isn't getting credit cards...instead they have to take loans from the cash checking places where their interest is closer to 25-50% depending on how shifty the place and what the laws are in their state.





Hello, there never was a marriage penalty. Married people have always payed less in taxes than single people. What ****ing marriage penalty? Lies.

child tax credit increased by what? Virtually nothing. Meanwhile federal student loan programs were ****ing gutted, so that the poor can't even hope their children get out of the cycle of poverty through education.

Hand-outs to those who can work but don't? Newflash, most people work in America. Most people want to work in America. Some 93% of all Americans able to work do work. There are very few handouts being given to "shiftless lazy" poor, despite what you animals try to convince everyone in America.

:iamwithst

Families with one or more children can receive much more EIC than single workers who do not care for any children. For tax year 2005, the maximum EIC amount a qualifying worker with one child can receive is $2,662. For two or more children under one’s care, the maximum amount is $4,400. For workers with no children, the maximum EIC amount is just $399. Of course, the EIC amount that most workers can obtain is lower than these maximum figures. Workers who are eligible for the EIC can receive an advance on their credit. This advance is not a lump sum. Rather, the payment is spread throughout the year as extra money in the worker’s paycheck.

http://www.taxcreditresources.org/pages.cfm?contentID=34&pageID=12&Subpages=yes

The Child Tax Credit (CTC) is $1,000 per “qualifying” child. It is important to note that when the credit amount is more than what is owed in taxes, the CTC is partially refundable, provided you qualify. In general, the actual amount of CTC you may be able to claim (and in some cases have refunded to you) is best determined in the context of figuring out your overall tax return.

http://www.taxcreditresources.org/pages.cfm?contentID=41&pageID=14&Subpages=yes

Now, doing a bit of math shows that a family of four can get up to $6,400 in credits. Just a weee bit more than the few hundred dollars you claim. And all the profanity you can throw around won't change that fact.

Second, there was a marriage penalty. You see, back in the old days when women didn't work, they weren't given a full deduction. And up until just a few years ago the combined personal deductions for a married couple did NOT equal the personal deductions of two single people. In other words, the wife wasn't given as large a deduction as the husband because the old deductions date back to a time when it was uncommon for both spouses to work. Now, you can either believe me on that, or you can ask your friends, or I can use my amazing powers of searching, cutting, and pasting to make you look like a fool again. Your choice.

Tudamorf
10-04-2006, 04:31 PM
Gimme a break.

If I'm higher level worker, say an electrician, or a plumber. Skilled labor.

And my lunches are now costing 7 bucks instead of 5 bucks. My childcare has increased because min wage has increased. I am going to raise my prices.

But I am not just going to increase it a dollar an hour. I make 50 bucks an hour now, I'm going to charge 55, or 60 bucks an hour for my time now.

My customers, people who make more money than I do Accountants, Doctors, Lawyers, Writers, Owners of companies will pay me that difference.

And because all of their expenses have gone up, they will increase their prices.

Lawyers who make 250 an hour now, will just increase theirs to 300 bucks an hours. Etc. Etc. on up it goes.Interesting theory, but it's dead wrong. Read the link I gave you, or if you don't like it, I can find others. Minimum wage increases do not just put an X% bias into the economy as you claim. Since you're acting on a faulty premise, the rest of your argument is pointless.

Panamah
10-04-2006, 04:37 PM
Now, doing a bit of math shows that a family of four can get up to $6,400 in credits. Just a weee bit more than the few hundred dollars you claim. And all the profanity you can throw around won't change that fact.

That isn't $6,400 above what they paid in taxes (which in the case of a minimum wage couple with kids would be 0). That's what I was trying to point out. They might get a couple of hundred dollars back, but they won't get $6,400 back because they didn't owe any taxes.

The Child Tax Credit (CTC) is $1,000 per “qualifying” child. It is important to note that when the credit amount is more than what is owed in taxes, the CTC is partially refundable, provided you qualify. In general, the actual amount of CTC you may be able to claim (and in some cases have refunded to you) is best determined in the context of figuring out your overall tax return.

Talyena Trueheart
10-04-2006, 04:56 PM
Well above minimum wage eh?

Maybe when looking at wal-marts nationwide average and comparing it to the federal minimum wage.

Do I need to explain how that doesn't really work though (Hint, it has to do with state minimum wage imbalances and the fact that its an average).

Okay, let me be more specific. We have no state minimum wage, so the minimum wage here is $5.15 an hour. Wal-Mart starts here at $6.50 an hour for daytime work. Cashiers and night time help start off higher. This is unskilled labor starting at about a buck and a half more than the federal minimum wage. And with the low cost of living here, I doubt there are many if any Wal-Marts that start for less. So all raising the minimum wage would do for Wal-Mart workers here is bring them closer or all the way down to minimum wage.

Talyena Trueheart
10-04-2006, 05:02 PM
That isn't $6,400 above what they paid in taxes (which in the case of a minimum wage couple with kids would be 0). That's what I was trying to point out. They might get a couple of hundred dollars back, but they won't get $6,400 back because they didn't owe any taxes.

I have personally gotten tax returns in the 4-5k range. The sweet spot for a family of four seems to be with a few thousand of 20k per year. You pay zero taxes and get most or all of both the EIC and child tax credits. If you make less than the sweet spot the child tax credit starts falling off, and if you make much more than the sweet spot the EIC starts falling off. I'm not positive it is possible to get the very maximum, but I do know it is possible to get pretty close, and remember, this is well below the level where a family of four would actually owe any taxes.

Panamah
10-04-2006, 05:30 PM
Well, a tax return is usually mostly your money. How much of it wasn't your money?

Sounds like the EIC for children is 1,000. But that whole thing is too confusing to figure out for the sake of an internet debate!

I wonder if there are any free tax calculators online. We could plug in our fictitious family.

Gunny Burlfoot
10-04-2006, 06:34 PM
Btw, you'll notice they don't list where that apartment is. I'd be very scared for any 2 bedroom apartment for 415/mo. Something is wrong.

What is wrong is the fact that you expect everyone to go after the same apartments and standard of living that you do. I freely acknowledge the stereotype that the lower the cost, the crappier the neighborhood, but that is not always true. As they make more money then they can move to a better location, if they are uncomfortable with the location that the apartment they can afford will get them. Your accusation that somehow anyone who suggests people live off of what they earn is uncompassionate is unfounded.

6k for a car isn't abnormal or extravegant. If you buy a 900 dollar car...you're going to either A) Buy another 900 car within a year or B) pay a couple grand to fix it.

Why Aidon, it's almost like you didn't read my post. If you go back and read, I did comment that they would buy another beat up car each year.

Also, not all the cars were $900 dollars; 2 of th e 3 were $650. Again, if you could have been bothered to actually click through and search for yourself, you would have found the same information I did. If you look later in my calculations, you will find that 900/12 does indeed equal 75/month they have to set aside each month to buy a new clunker every 12 months.

Of course the average for Toledo was 83 and change in that article. Do you know how far away Marion or Akron (some of those '16 surrounding cities') are?

Marion and Akron, according to the links I thoughtfully provided you, are approx. 100mi from Toledo. I could get exact distances, but why bother? It's obvious from your comments that you won't change your mind one iota that perhaps if people close to the poverty line lived within their means they could get by with a minimalist existence, and with great effort, could set aside a little money for educational training.

Do you really thinkg all you're going to be doing is trips to work and the grocery stor and night classes? (Oh, btw, who the **** is watching the two children while you're at night classes until 9 at night?)

If you're living at the poverty line, you aren't doing anything that is not absolutely essential to make money to pay the bills, and try to make yourself more marketable to the workforce. And I can come up with several ways to resolve the difficulty of child care. And I'm not the most creative person in the world. The government does have programs for those in poverty as I understand it, but that would be a copout, since I am trying to show anyone can get by without assistance from the government, that is able bodied, and able minded (As a side note, I fully agree with the government taking care of the disabled and mentally disabled. Where I balk is taking care of people that are fully capable of taking care of themselves) The second was already suggested in this thread, that you find people in the same situation, with kids, but no money to take care of them, and establish a rotating child care schedule for those under the age of 6. Once the kids get into first grade, of course, then the other government sponsored childcare system will take care of them. The third way to take care of the kids is what many people I know do, since they can't afford child care either. The mother and father work different shifts, and thus someone is always available to take care of the children. One works days, the other nights. And I believe some colleges with night classes do offer care, so you could even take the kids along to your classes.

You can't feed four people on 200 a month here, not if you want them to be even reasonably nourished. But hey, what's a little scurvy?!

Your hyperbole is quite excellent, but flawed. When you've finished hyperventilating, you will realize, that a jar of Vitamin C at the local Walmart costs 15.00 and has 500 of 1,000mg pills, which are around 666% of the FDA daily recommended levels. So carefully subdividing each pill into 6 parts to get maximum bang for the buck, that's 3,000 doses of the recommended daily allowance of Vitamin C, thus putting to rest the fear of scurvy, and this strange objection of a completely unnecessary disease, if proper thought and planning is done. I believe 15.00 for 2 years worth of scurvy prevention for an entire family of 4 is within anyone's budget.

You're an asshole for suggesting these people are just shiftless, stupid, and lazy. You're an even bigger asshole for thinking you can live on what you pretended it would cost.

You're a bigger asshole for simply having zero compassion for people who work hard every day to scrape out a living and still have to rely on welfare because people like yourself think its A-OK to pay people squat.

Ad hominem attacks are not helpful to the discussion. I will not respond to them other than this.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-04-2006, 06:41 PM
Interesting theory, but it's dead wrong. Read the link I gave you, or if you don't like it, I can find others. Minimum wage increases do not just put an X% bias into the economy as you claim. Since you're acting on a faulty premise, the rest of your argument is pointless.

On page three of your report it explicitly states that...

The effect of a new minimum wage is simulated in two ways. The first assumes that the
minimum-wage increase has only a “direct” effect, that is, it raises the wages of those earning between
the current level and the proposed new level up to the new level.

That assumption is what is faulty.
It presupposes that all wages above minimum wage will stay stationary. And there is nothing in real life to support that assumption. It is blatantly wrong.

I am not putting an X% bias into the economy.

What additional costs there are to bring a product to market, and to sell an item, are passed on to the customer. Now the net effect can be immediately three fold when faced with increased prices of product, one buy less stuff, two one can work more for the same rate of pay, and third one can increase the price of their labor to compensate.

If a company does not increase the price, and pass it on to the consumer, then the net effect is that everyone above minimum wage has to take a pay cut to compensate for the increased labor costs at the bottom of the pyramid. And we know that so rarely happens, when it does, it usually makes the news.

I just don't know where you think this money comes from.

Aldarion_Shard
10-04-2006, 07:48 PM
Aidon, your assumptions are all flawed.

But I'll just tackle the biggest flaw: that poor people can't get enough student loans to pay for college. I paid my entire way through a Bachelors and PhD with student loans. My family didnt contribute one red cent. I didnt qualify for a single cent of government grants. And I went to only private universities, where tuition was always greater than 20k per year.

I dont know what you've read on liberal blogs about Bush and federal student loans. But I know that over the past decade, student loans have remained so generous and freely available that I have financed my entire education with them.

Any American citizen can do the same. Anyone who says they cant afford to go to college in 21st century America is lying, or is mistaken.

Panamah
10-04-2006, 11:09 PM
So you're going to be 80,000 dollars in debt when you get out of school? I don't know about you, but I was working some pretty ****ty jobs right out of college. Of course, I majored in music for my first degree. That would've taken me 20 years to pay off!

Tudamorf
10-04-2006, 11:16 PM
That assumption is what is faulty.
It presupposes that all wages above minimum wage will stay stationary. And there is nothing in real life to support that assumption. It is blatantly wrong.You should have read the next sentence, and the tables that follow:The second estimate assumes that there is also an indirect effect on workers earning below the current minimum and a spillover effect that boosts the earnings of workers in some low-wage sectors who are currently earning more than the minimum.I am not putting an X% bias into the economy.Yes you are. You're saying that no matter what we set the minimum wage to, the economy will rebalance itself in exactly the same way it is now, except with different absolute numbers. That's the same as saying that raising the minimum wage by X% will just bias the economy by X% without altering it.

No doubt, there is some spillover effect, somewhere, when you raise the minimum wage. But it is a very complex effect and not just a simple "oh the poor guy gets a 10% raise, so the rich guy will just raise his prices 10%". The effect results in compression of the rich-to-poor gap, i.e., instant socialism. You can further compress it from the other end through higher taxes, and so on.

You can debate the merits of the minimum wage, and capitalism versus socialism, but it <i>does</i> work.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-04-2006, 11:46 PM
You should have read the next sentence, and the tables that follow:Yes you are. You're saying that no matter what we set the minimum wage to, the economy will rebalance itself in exactly the same way it is now, except with different absolute numbers.
It always has.
Hell, I even asked my best friend today, the one who works at WalMart, even she knows that it happens(and she works at WalMart).
It makes NO difference what you set the minimum wage at, it will always recompensate.

When I was 18, minimum wage was 3.50 an hour.
A Big Mac Meal, or a Whopper Meal was 2.50.

Today, minimum wage is 6.75 an hour.
McJob meals are 5 bucks now.

Almost exactly double, price to product.

Every minimum wage bump along the way showed a corelatated compensation for the increase in the cost of products from minimum wage labor.

That's the same as saying that raising the minimum wage by X% will just bias the economy by X% without altering it.
Actually, from what I see, the cost of higher end wages appears to increase at a larger percentage.

No doubt, there is some spillover effect, somewhere, when you raise the minimum wage.
Some? People price their labor relative to other people who do closely what they do. If their cohorts wages increase, people adjust the cost of their labor(ie they ask for raises, or find work elsewhere usually at a higher rate).

But it is a very complex effect and not just a simple "oh the poor guy gets a 10% raise, so the rich guy will just raise his prices 10%".
You jack up the cost of what people have to pay for stuff, and you say they just eat the difference. Everyone I know finds that a painful experience.

The effect results in compression of the rich-to-poor gap, i.e., instant socialism. You can further compress it from the other end through higher taxes, and so on.
Yes, there is a short time for the readjustment to take place. But it is shortlived.

You can debate the merits of the minimum wage, and capitalism versus socialism, but it <i>does</i> work.
I'm not debating that issue anymore. I have given up, because it doesn't matter. I am going to be making real money here, soon. And I guarantee you, that when our minimum wage increases to $8(from 6.75), I am going to be getting a raise to compensate for it.

I will be an ICU RN, at that time. That means in a nutshell, that the cost of your healthcare is indirectly going to increase when minimum wage increases. You won't feel that immediately, but the cost will be taken by the hospital, they will pass that cost to insurance companies, the insurance companies are going to pass that cost to businesses who offer health insurance to their employees, who will stick it to their employees and jack up the price of their products.

Basic economics man. When my pizzas and McMeals and bread go up in price, I am going to charge more for my labor. Basic.

When people who make less than me, move closer to what I make, I am going to charge more for my labor. That is the human nature pattern I have seen.

Raise the minimum wage, it does not affect me negatively one bit,,except if I am making minimum wage. That is when it hurts the most, because I have no power to compensate for the increase cost of pizzas and McMeals and bread. That gain is lost in increased costs of what I buy, and I am stuck where I am today, bitchin about how I can't feed a wife and 2 kids on minimum wage.

Talyena Trueheart
10-05-2006, 12:20 AM
It makes NO difference what you set the minimum wage at, it will always recompensate.

I disagree. There are other things that you must factor into the equation. Such as the increase in costs here driving up the cost of American made goods. This would drive down exports and increase imports. You also have to look at those who are lucky to be getting minimum wage. Some employers would decide that their job just isn't worth the extra expense. And that job would either be added to someone else's work load, or be done by someone working under the table (such as an illegal or maybe a teenager). It wouldn't be just an across the board adjustment. Some prices would go up, some people would lose their jobs, and a few more jobs would go over seas.

This would be easily seen on a large increse, but if you raised the minimum wage just a buck while the economy is doing well most people won't notice the effects. They won't know that the economic growth would have been a bit higher without that increase, or that imports wouldn't have grown quite as fast, and they won't notice that some of those who were walking the tight rope whom they were trying to help ended up unemployed. They will feel all good inside without realizing the damage they have done in the long run.

Erianaiel
10-05-2006, 02:58 AM
This would be easily seen on a large increse, but if you raised the minimum wage just a buck while the economy is doing well most people won't notice the effects. They won't know that the economic growth would have been a bit higher without that increase, or that imports wouldn't have grown quite as fast, and they won't notice that some of those who were walking the tight rope whom they were trying to help ended up unemployed. They will feel all good inside without realizing the damage they have done in the long run.

(emphasis mine)

But what is the point of that economic growth if not to make people richer?

Economic growth in and of itself is not a relevant factor. What matters is where that increased income potential ends up. Last year (?) the richest 400 americans collective gained 100 billion dollars. At the same time the median income barely shifted, though I believe it managed to keep up with the inflation (for the first time in over half a decade). In other words, at one end of the income spectrum you have people who have not gained a thing from this 'economic growth'. I have no detailed and reliable figures to differentiate between mid and low incomes so I will be charitable and assume that nobody actually earned less after correcting for inflation.
At the high end of the income spectrum we have a very few people who gained the majority of the actual economic growth (i.e. what remained after correcting for inflation). That money is not contributing much to the economy. Basically it is just sitting in a bank debot collecting more money.
Should that money have been distributed evenly over the population then each american could have spent 400 dollars more last year, which may not seem a big deal but it is money spent on things that keeps factories and local services running. Or the money could have been spent on social programs aimed at helping people escape poverty (e.g financial support and daycare for children of single parents who want to pursue daytime education)


Eri

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-05-2006, 03:47 AM
That money is not contributing much to the economy. Basically it is just sitting in a bank debot collecting more money.
I suppose you mean interest. The bank is paying money to people to put their money in their bank. So that they can loan the money to other people so that they can build homes and buy homes and build stuff and start businesses. It happens to also be where those student loans funds come from, so that the people in this thread can go to university. My ex girlfriend racked up 200K in school loans, that money has to come from somewhere, poor people weren't going to loan it to her.

Should that money have been distributed evenly over the population then each american could have spent 400 dollars more last year, which may not seem a big deal but it is money spent on things that keeps factories and local services running.
Personally, I feel that I should be able to invest and spend my money since I earned it. I think that most people who earn money think that it is theirs to do with as the wish. Even give it away to charity like Warren Buffet, Bill, and Melinda where they want it to go, and not where you want it to go.

Seems only fair since they earned it. You are more than welcome to earn your own and dole it out as you see fit. If it were easy to make money, everyone would be doing it. De facto, it is hard to make money, thus earning it.

Or the money could have been spent on social programs aimed at helping people escape poverty (e.g financial support and daycare for children of single parents who want to pursue daytime education)
The State of California and the residents and business of San Joaquin County are paying my school 20K a year to put me through college. I don't even have to pay it back; well, I have to pay it back through taxes(and have already, of course), but not like a loan.

In addition, I have plenty of friends(who are poor) who take advantage of this program.
http://www.ladpss.org/dpss/calworks/default.cfm

It pays for them to go to college and pays for childcare while they are at school.

Thanks California.

Talyena Trueheart
10-05-2006, 09:33 AM
Actually, most of those rich people who keep making more and more money keep using that money to do what made them rich in the first place. They invest that money. And by investing that money they grow the economy more which means more people work. What good does it do if you somehow manage to make it where working people are making more money, but fewer people are working? And how much do you think raising the minimum wage will increase wages on average when only a very small minority of people in the nation ever make minimum wage? All it will do is cost the jobs of some of the poorest people, close down some entry level positions, and cause a bit of inflation which will hurt those who are now making closer to minimum wage than they were before the most.

Aldarion_Shard
10-05-2006, 01:15 PM
So you're going to be 80,000 dollars in debt when you get out of school?
Give or take, ya somewhere around there. I finished school, went straight into grad school and finished that. So I get to skip the crappy jobs phase.

Education has a price in modern America, but that price comes in the form of committment. Everyone is able to get any degree they want, provided they are intelligent enough (which really only means not completely retarded) and willing to make the committment.

I never said it came cheap -- just that it is within ANYONE'S reach.

Panamah
10-05-2006, 01:19 PM
Give or take, ya somewhere around there. I finished school, went straight into grad school and finished that. So I get to skip the crappy jobs phase.
Hopefully you're in a lot better position than I was, way back then. There was just so much competition for jobs and people had a lot of degrees. But... I think something for people to think about is, is it really worth it to start off in your career with almost a mortgage sized debt?

Aldarion_Shard
10-05-2006, 01:27 PM
For many of us, there is no other option.

I hear you. I'm not excited about the debt. But I was not gonna be able to get my chosen degree without debt. And really, the debt payments are not terrible. We're talking about 800-900$ a month. People pay that much for car payments on a new car, which is essentially money thrown away. I'll keep driving affordable used cars and spend the money on repaying my loans instead.

MadroneDorf
10-05-2006, 02:08 PM
Interesting Article on Min wage in Britain (and a little in the US) from the Economist.

http://economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8001252

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-05-2006, 04:15 PM
There is NO danger to raising the minimum wage. And all the objections by Conservatives and Business are smoke and mirrors and false boogy men.

In all the time I have been working, there has been no correlation between unemployment and minimum wage increases. Maybe some shifting from job to job(that is usually a good thing). Even Tudamorf's report shows that, if you don't want to take my word for it.

The only thing that it does cause is inflation, and with sound Fed management, it just restabilizes at the new level.

It gives the 'unskilled' worker a sense of satisfation, thus increasing morale. Which is a good thing for Business because that usually begets increased productivity. Feed the pellet to the rat on the wheel every few years, and the rat will stay happy and spinning the wheel.

As mentioned by another poster, it does change inter country trade balances. But that evens out, itself. The rat does not know that the rats in other countries pay less for a DVD or a PS3 than it does, nor does it really care.

The only way that one can truely move ahead is to increase his or her own worth, by education and networking, to get a better paying job. For those workers who do not do that, they will ALWAYs be doomed to being poor. they will always be poor, compared to those who are richer. Unless they improve themselves to improve their lot.

Make minimum wage 10 bucks and hour, 50, 100. It does not matter. Those who are poor, those in the bottom 10% bracket will always be poor, no matter how much they make, because you are judging by comparing to those who are rich, those who make more. And you are not judging it by any other objective milestone.

A minimum wage worker now spends 20 minutes of work to buy a loaf of bread, if minimum wage is increased to 100 bucks and hour, he still is going to have to work for 20 minutes to but it(and it will cost him 40 bucks). Now other sources of inflation not associated with minimum wage, say the price of energy, eg gasoline, will have an effect on that too.

Aidon
10-06-2006, 09:55 AM
Aidon, your assumptions are all flawed.

But I'll just tackle the biggest flaw: that poor people can't get enough student loans to pay for college. I paid my entire way through a Bachelors and PhD with student loans. My family didnt contribute one red cent. I didnt qualify for a single cent of government grants. And I went to only private universities, where tuition was always greater than 20k per year.

I dont know what you've read on liberal blogs about Bush and federal student loans. But I know that over the past decade, student loans have remained so generous and freely available that I have financed my entire education with them.

A) Bush completely removed Perkins Loans. They are gone. History. No longer available. He's also, if I recalled, reduced the funding for stafford loans

B) Tuition has jumped huge amounts in the past decade. Something like 40% increase in Ohio in the past 8 years.

Any American citizen can do the same. Anyone who says they cant afford to go to college in 21st century America is lying, or is mistaken.

Noone in America should be paying for college. It should be government funded. Every citizen should be able to get a secondary education without taking out loans as large as a home mortgage.

Aidon
10-06-2006, 10:12 AM
:iamwithst



http://www.taxcreditresources.org/pages.cfm?contentID=34&pageID=12&Subpages=yes




http://www.taxcreditresources.org/pages.cfm?contentID=41&pageID=14&Subpages=yes

Now, doing a bit of math shows that a family of four can get up to $6,400 in credits. Just a weee bit more than the few hundred dollars you claim. And all the profanity you can throw around won't change that fact.

There's alot of qualifyings, maximums, and potentials in there...use your amazing powers to figure out

A) How many people actually get that much

B) How many poverty stricken folks actually manage to get their taxes done correctly in order to qualify

C) How much the GOP congress is actually lying.

Second, there was a marriage penalty. You see, back in the old days when women didn't work, they weren't given a full deduction. And up until just a few years ago the combined personal deductions for a married couple did NOT equal the personal deductions of two single people. In other words, the wife wasn't given as large a deduction as the husband because the old deductions date back to a time when it was uncommon for both spouses to work. Now, you can either believe me on that, or you can ask your friends, or I can use my amazing powers of searching, cutting, and pasting to make you look like a fool again. Your choice.

There was also a marriage "bonus". More couples payed less filing jointly than they would filing individually, than vice versa. To the tune of some $33 billion in bonuses in '96 vs $29 billion in penalties.

Aidon
10-06-2006, 10:15 AM
Okay, let me be more specific. We have no state minimum wage, so the minimum wage here is $5.15 an hour. Wal-Mart starts here at $6.50 an hour for daytime work. Cashiers and night time help start off higher. This is unskilled labor starting at about a buck and a half more than the federal minimum wage. And with the low cost of living here, I doubt there are many if any Wal-Marts that start for less. So all raising the minimum wage would do for Wal-Mart workers here is bring them closer or all the way down to minimum wage.

Not if we moved the minimum wage to something resembling a living wage...

Refer to previous posts regarding how much 9/hr gets compared to the real cost of a two person family.

Aidon
10-06-2006, 10:58 AM
What is wrong is the fact that you expect everyone to go after the same apartments and standard of living that you do. I freely acknowledge the stereotype that the lower the cost, the crappier the neighborhood, but that is not always true. As they make more money then they can move to a better location, if they are uncomfortable with the location that the apartment they can afford will get them. Your accusation that somehow anyone who suggests people live off of what they earn is uncompassionate is unfounded.

No, I don't expect everyone to match my standard of living. But neither do I think that families with children should have to live in squalor. Evidently, living in crime infested, decrepit neighborhoods, in apartments which are similarly decrepit and infested with vermin, is A-OK with you. Not to mention that a two bedroom apartment for 415 with utilities is probably only barely a two-bedroom, with kids or parents living in a "bedroom" the size of a closet.



Why Aidon, it's almost like you didn't read my post. If you go back and read, I did comment that they would buy another beat up car each year.

Also, not all the cars were $900 dollars; 2 of th e 3 were $650. Again, if you could have been bothered to actually click through and search for yourself, you would have found the same information I did. If you look later in my calculations, you will find that 900/12 does indeed equal 75/month they have to set aside each month to buy a new clunker every 12 months.

And I'm telling you, its a ****ing dream world you live in. Your 900 dollar clunker isn't going to make it a year without you having to sink money into it. Its not going to be even reasonably safe for your children. Its not going to handle Toledo winters. I remember paying 1300 for a '91 falling apart Chevy Nova, back in '97. That car was a piece of ****. I wouldn't have driven any child in it. The first winter I had it, the wipers stopped working while I was on the highway, on the way to my minimum wage McDonald's job, in the middle of a snow storm. I ended up having to call a tow truck because it was impossible for me to see out my windshield. I was lucky I didn't lose my job, since I had to call off work that day, due to having no transportation.



Marion and Akron, according to the links I thoughtfully provided you, are approx. 100mi from Toledo. I could get exact distances, but why bother? It's obvious from your comments that you won't change your mind one iota that perhaps if people close to the poverty line lived within their means they could get by with a minimalist existence, and with great effort, could set aside a little money for educational training.

...100 miles away, roughly, is an hour and a half away...what, exactly, are you expecting them to do?



If you're living at the poverty line, you aren't doing anything that is not absolutely essential to make money to pay the bills, and try to make yourself more marketable to the workforce.

Ah...so the poor don't deserve any recreation either, eh? Because if they dare to go watch the fireworks downtown, or visit Toledo's world class free museum, they're being lazy bastards.

Of course...there are "legitimate" non-work, non-school, non-grocery destinations. You know, doctors, clinics, pharmacies, shoe stores, etc. etc. etc.

And I can come up with several ways to resolve the difficulty of child care. And I'm not the most creative person in the world. The government does have programs for those in poverty as I understand it, but that would be a copout, since I am trying to show anyone can get by without assistance from the government, that is able bodied, and able minded (As a side note, I fully agree with the government taking care of the disabled and mentally disabled. Where I balk is taking care of people that are fully capable of taking care of themselves) The second was already suggested in this thread, that you find people in the same situation, with kids, but no money to take care of them, and establish a rotating child care schedule for those under the age of 6. Once the kids get into first grade, of course, then the other government sponsored childcare system will take care of them.

Rotating childcare for groups of families who are all working multiple part time minimum wage jobs and trying to go to school to better themselves at the same time? When, exactly, is this going to happen? Regarding school...about the latest you can hope to have school/afterschool programs watch the kids is until 6pm.

The third way to take care of the kids is what many people I know do, since they can't afford child care either. The mother and father work different shifts, and thus someone is always available to take care of the children. One works days, the other nights. And I believe some colleges with night classes do offer care, so you could even take the kids along to your classes.

When, then, are these people supposed to go to school?



Your hyperbole is quite excellent, but flawed. When you've finished hyperventilating, you will realize, that a jar of Vitamin C at the local Walmart costs 15.00 and has 500 of 1,000mg pills, which are around 666% of the FDA daily recommended levels. So carefully subdividing each pill into 6 parts to get maximum bang for the buck, that's 3,000 doses of the recommended daily allowance of Vitamin C, thus putting to rest the fear of scurvy, and this strange objection of a completely unnecessary disease, if proper thought and planning is done. I believe 15.00 for 2 years worth of scurvy prevention for an entire family of 4 is within anyone's budget.

It was an example. 200 a month isn't feeding a family in a healthy manner here.

Aidon
10-06-2006, 11:02 AM
It always has.
Hell, I even asked my best friend today, the one who works at WalMart, even she knows that it happens(and she works at WalMart).
It makes NO difference what you set the minimum wage at, it will always recompensate.

When I was 18, minimum wage was 3.50 an hour.
A Big Mac Meal, or a Whopper Meal was 2.50.

Today, minimum wage is 6.75 an hour.
McJob meals are 5 bucks now.

minimum wage is 5.15 an hour.

McJob meals are 5 bucks.

Gasoline has increased in costs far greater than inflation. So have a myriad of other necessities.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-06-2006, 11:32 AM
minimum wage is 5.15 an hour.

McJob meals are 5 bucks.
So, 20 years ago, both were half that. California's minimum wage has been more than Federal for all of my memory.

Gasoline has increased in costs far greater than inflation. So have a myriad of other necessities.
The increase in the price of necessities(as a part of the whole) is what inflation is.

20 years ago(well, in 83), a gallon of milk and a gallon of gas cost the same.
Milk is more expensive now, per gallon. We did not really have bottled water back then(maybe Perrier), but gas is less expensive than bottled water is now. If you asked anyone back in 1983 if they would pay more for water than gasoline, they would have locked you up.

The price of gasoline is not tied to the price of labor as other products, because it is controlled by monopolies and cartels(which price fix). Besides very few people in the production of gasoline(save the cashier, or so) make minimum wage.

Aldarion_Shard
10-06-2006, 02:04 PM
Noone in America should be paying for college. It should be government funded. Every citizen should be able to get a secondary education without taking out loans as large as a home mortgage.
Thats fine. I disagree 100%. But thats a fine opinion to hold.

However, it has nothing to do with your previous assertion that poor people cant afford to get a higher education. You dont need Perkin loans, I did mine on 100% Staffords. And if Stafford loans went down, it wasnt by much. It was still enough to get a person through college.

I have taken out Stafford loans throughout the Bush administration.

Any American citizen can afford higher education, period, end of story. Anyone who doesnt take this opportunity remains uneducated by choice, not necessity.

Talyena Trueheart
10-06-2006, 04:00 PM
There's alot of qualifyings, maximums, and potentials in there...use your amazing powers to figure out

A) How many people actually get that much

B) How many poverty stricken folks actually manage to get their taxes done correctly in order to qualify

C) How much the GOP congress is actually lying.



There was also a marriage "bonus". More couples payed less filing jointly than they would filing individually, than vice versa. To the tune of some $33 billion in bonuses in '96 vs $29 billion in penalties.

a) I don't even know if it is possible to get the entire ammount, but I do know if it isn't that you can get pretty close. And I know there is a wide range where a family of four can get 4k+ back.

b) Not my problem. I would rather see a flat tax with nothing more than personal deductions that can be filled out on a post card. But if you can't handle the math and instructions, it can be done for free (including direct deposit) on the internet, or you can go to a tax agency who will do it for a cut of the return.

c) BDS

Show me this marriage bonus. I want to see the numbers and where you get the bonus. There are many situations where people get more or less filling seperately or jointly, especially when kids are involved. But there was no bonus just for being married. The standard deduction for a married couple was however less than 2x the standard deduction for two single people. That was the marriage penalty.

Aidon
10-07-2006, 12:42 AM
So, 20 years ago, both were half that. California's minimum wage has been more than Federal for all of my memory.

Actually, federal minimum wage was 3.35 in 1985. That would be worth 5.95 today.


The increase in the price of necessities(as a part of the whole) is what inflation is.

20 years ago(well, in 83), a gallon of milk and a gallon of gas cost the same.
Milk is more expensive now, per gallon.

Um...Milk has never been 3 bucks a gallon here. Its usually around 2 bucks.

In '94 a gallon of gas cost me roughly 95 cents. Today with inflation, it should cost 1.24.

We did not really have bottled water back then(maybe Perrier), but gas is less expensive than bottled water is now. If you asked anyone back in 1983 if they would pay more for water than gasoline, they would have locked you up.

I can get 12 liters of bottled water for under 8 dollars. That's 3 gallons. That's...wait for it. Less than 3 bucks a gallon.

Aidon
10-07-2006, 01:06 AM
Thats fine. I disagree 100%. But thats a fine opinion to hold.

However, it has nothing to do with your previous assertion that poor people cant afford to get a higher education. You dont need Perkin loans, I did mine on 100% Staffords. And if Stafford loans went down, it wasnt by much. It was still enough to get a person through college.

I have taken out Stafford loans throughout the Bush administration.

Any American citizen can afford higher education, period, end of story. Anyone who doesnt take this opportunity remains uneducated by choice, not necessity.

Not any American citizen can afford higher education. Not period. Not end of story.

Take out loans worth 40 grand to get a job that may start you at 35k if your lucky? And that's for a public school in Ohio and on the low end. Or make it 80-120k in loans for a doctorate and hope you start at 50k.

But, wait, lets look at Stafford Loans today, thanks to the Higher Education Reconciliation Act President Bush signed in Feb of this year:

Freshman loan limits, 3,500 per year. Woah, wait a minute...3,500 per year.
Sophomore loan limits

/me counts on his fingers. Oh wait, it costs 7400 and change for in-state residents to go to the University of Toledo, and that's simply tuition and fees.


Lets see what else, oh yes, the interest on Stafford Loans is not 6.8% fixed rate. That's quite a bit of a jump in interest, from what I understand.

Married Couples can no longer consolidate outstanding loans into a joint spousal loan.


Then, you still have to be able to get into and perform in higher education, something that our poverty stricken can't do...because they are stuck in the worst primary and high schools our nation has to offer.

On the other hand...none of this matters, really, because in the end, its just you being a miserly bitter shmuck. "I had it rough so I want others to have it rough" Seriously...that's like the asshats that bitched because they would make things easier for newbs in EQ.

You know, you'd think folks who have experienced poverty would be more supportive of trying to help others in poverty. Instead, so many of them seem willing to **** on the poor they used to live amongst.

I'm not talking about single childless people. They have no need of help, really. But a family living below the poverty limit should be helped by us, not reviled.

Minadin
10-07-2006, 03:12 AM
I am not sure where you are buying gas or milk, but around here, gas is $2 per gallon, milk is $2.75 per gallon, and bottled water is still about $8 for 3 gallons . . . which is still more than gas (less than milk).

I'm not sure it's fair to compare highly speculative fossil fuel commodities with low speculative renewable agricultural commodities with common, easy to synthesize, non-commodities. Some are going to vary a great deal, and some not so much.

Aidon
10-07-2006, 10:33 AM
I am not sure where you are buying gas or milk, but around here, gas is $2 per gallon, milk is $2.75 per gallon, and bottled water is still about $8 for 3 gallons . . . which is still more than gas (less than milk).

Gas is currently about 2 per gallon, as well, but we all know that's an artificial reduction in price until after the Election.

I'm not sure it's fair to compare highly speculative fossil fuel commodities with low speculative renewable agricultural commodities with common, easy to synthesize, non-commodities. Some are going to vary a great deal, and some not so much.

Its not fair to compare it, no. But I didn't make the comparison. Its the apologists who make the comparison. I think its idiocy to use milk as a ****ing gauge for gas. You use 30-60 gallons of gas per month, per vehicle. Milk consumption is much lower. Further, milk can be supplemented with other potables. You can't put anything but gasoline in your gas tank.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-07-2006, 01:46 PM
I am not an apologist.

I just think that staples are great indexes.

Milk is not a poor index for your reasons.
Milk is a poor index because dairies are paid to not produce milk, to restrict production, in order to keep the price higher than the market would naturally allow. If you factor that it, it is a great index for consumer prices vis a vis inflation. The price of milk is tied to so many other prices as well, cheese, butter, ice cream. When milk goes up, so do all the rest.


Additionally, your contesting regional differences in prices is silly. I have included the before and after prices for percentage change difference. Whatever your region is, or was, factor in your own regional prices against that percentage, and you will find it close enough for government work. I don't care that you were paying 2 dollars a gallon when we, in California, are paying 3 dollars. The change in that price due to inflation is going to be approximately the same percentagewise. If in 5 years, you are paying double, and I am paying double, that is your milk is 4 and mine is now 6, that is the point(not that yours is 4 and mine is 6, who cares about that).

Aidon
10-07-2006, 05:06 PM
Show me this marriage bonus. I want to see the numbers and where you get the bonus. There are many situations where people get more or less filling seperately or jointly, especially when kids are involved. But there was no bonus just for being married. The standard deduction for a married couple was however less than 2x the standard deduction for two single people. That was the marriage penalty.

No, the marriage "penalty" was related to two married people merging their income and being bumped into the next tax bracket. Had they filed seperately, they both would have remained in the lower bracket and their taxes would have been less as two individuals at the old bracket, than the their taxes were as a married couple at the new bracket. This usually happened when both incomes were roughly the same.

Conversely, when the two incomes in a marriage were more widespread, such that adding the lower to the higher would not push the couple into the next tax bracket, filing jointly provided the couple with a significant "bonus".


All this tax "relief" did is lower our nations income. The entire reason why married couples were given a standard deduction less than two single people, originally, was because two singles who get married get to pool resources and generally spend less money than than the two of them were spending individually before they got married. Now, we're going broke, and the government is basically attempting social engineering by promoting marriage (but only heterosexual marriage, mind you).

Aidon
10-07-2006, 05:09 PM
I am not an apologist.

I just think that staples are great indexes.

Milk is not a poor index for your reasons.
Milk is a poor index because dairies are paid to not produce milk, to restrict production, in order to keep the price higher than the market would naturally allow. If you factor that it, it is a great index for consumer prices vis a vis inflation. The price of milk is tied to so many other prices as well, cheese, butter, ice cream. When milk goes up, so do all the rest.


Additionally, your contesting regional differences in prices is silly. I have included the before and after prices for percentage change difference. Whatever your region is, or was, factor in your own regional prices against that percentage, and you will find it close enough for government work. I don't care that you were paying 2 dollars a gallon when we, in California, are paying 3 dollars. The change in that price due to inflation is going to be approximately the same percentagewise. If in 5 years, you are paying double, and I am paying double, that is your milk is 4 and mine is now 6, that is the point(not that yours is 4 and mine is 6, who cares about that).

And I've shown you, already, that minimum wage has fallen behind inflation, and that there are many staples (if you think gasoline isn't a staple in modern America, you're fooling yourself) which have increased at rates higher than inflation.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-07-2006, 06:14 PM
And I've shown you, already, that minimum wage has fallen behind inflation, and that there are many staples (if you think gasoline isn't a staple in modern America, you're fooling yourself) which have increased at rates higher than inflation.

I did not say that gasoline was not a staple. It is.

It is NOT tied to the minimum wage the same way that all other staples are tied.

You can move millions of gallons of gasoline with only a few cashiers in the distibution chain. Ya, I know there are a bunch of janitors back at the corporate offices or out at a distillation plant. But compared to all other consumer products it is tied to the fewest minimum wage workers. The cost of gasoline is not indicative of true labor costs, it is artificially inflated by monopolies and cartels above the cost of labor.

And that is one of the reasons is that when compared to other staples, it has not kept up in price, percentage wise.

And how the hell can you remove staples from inflation like you do? They ARE what causes inflation. The price of staples are what cause inflation, how can they be separated like you say. The inflation number is an index, it is an average, just like the CPI. The price of products(including staples), which rise due to higher labor costs, is what leads inflation.

Personally, I don't care what the actual official number of inflation is. It does not matter. What matters is when the cost of milk or a can of Dinty Moore goes up in price. When you spend 2 hundred bucks for a basket of groceries, when you remember it being 50, that is inflation.

You have a piping loop, a torus, with a pump attached to the plumbing. The pump is also the greatest source of drag. The faster you pump, the more drag you get in the loop. And the drag and the force are equal. Sure you are going to have a short microsecond of inequlibrium when you turn the pump higher, where there is turbulence in the system, but the water will eventually reach the same speed that it was going before you turned the pump up higher.

The water will spin around the torus loop at the same speed, in the end.

Every dollar spent is a dollar of somebody's paycheck.
Every dollar of somebody's paycheck, came from somebody who spent it.
If you increase the amount of the paycheck, you increase the amount that needs to be spent.
You are chasing the paycheck with the spending. Just like in the torus.

Talyena Trueheart
10-09-2006, 12:00 AM
No, the marriage "penalty" was related to two married people merging their income and being bumped into the next tax bracket. Had they filed seperately, they both would have remained in the lower bracket and their taxes would have been less as two individuals at the old bracket, than the their taxes were as a married couple at the new bracket. This usually happened when both incomes were roughly the same.

Conversely, when the two incomes in a marriage were more widespread, such that adding the lower to the higher would not push the couple into the next tax bracket, filing jointly provided the couple with a significant "bonus".


All this tax "relief" did is lower our nations income. The entire reason why married couples were given a standard deduction less than two single people, originally, was because two singles who get married get to pool resources and generally spend less money than than the two of them were spending individually before they got married. Now, we're going broke, and the government is basically attempting social engineering by promoting marriage (but only heterosexual marriage, mind you).

Can't believe you made me go dig this stuff up, but I did it anyway. According to the 1999 1040A, the standard deduction for a single person was $4,300, and for a married couple filing jointly it was $7,200. So, the standard deduction for two singles was $8,600, or $1,400 more than a married couple. THAT is what was commonly refered to as the marriage penalty. Not sure the exact year it changed, but according to my 2003 return, the standard deduction for singles is $4,750, and for married filing jointly it is $9,500 which is exactly double (in other words, no more marriage penalty).

Aidon
10-09-2006, 08:27 AM
Can't believe you made me go dig this stuff up, but I did it anyway. According to the 1999 1040A, the standard deduction for a single person was $4,300, and for a married couple filing jointly it was $7,200. So, the standard deduction for two singles was $8,600, or $1,400 more than a married couple. THAT is what was commonly refered to as the marriage penalty. Not sure the exact year it changed, but according to my 2003 return, the standard deduction for singles is $4,750, and for married filing jointly it is $9,500 which is exactly double (in other words, no more marriage penalty).

That is not what the marriage penalty, as per se, though it contributed to those people who were faced with a "penalty".

Read what I typed in previous posts and you will understand.

Its not a penalty to give a married couple a lesser deduction. They spend less money than two single people across the board. Which is why the deduction for marriage was less than two single people.

The penalty came into play when two people who combined their income jumped up into the next bracket, at a higher tax rate. That bracket jumping would cause them to pay more taxes filing jointly than they would have paid filing seperately in the lower tax bracket.

Conversely, there were more people who, due to the disparity in the income levels of the two partners, would not jump brackets, and would find themselves getting more money back, filing jointly, than if they had filed seperately (for instance, a family where only one of the partners worked outside the home or only worked part-time and limited hours...and so filing a seperate return for the that partner's income would have netted little or no refund).