American Politics

[LexusInfernus 908]

Never said that they were everywhere, or that there were enough of them to support a national median income of $90,000.  I was saying that they exist, many require basically no prior experience or skills, and they pay well above what is typical for a college graduate.

Well thats the point, while some of those jobs exist right now, they aren't there for everyone. If they were, there wouldn't have been a shortage. 

 

 

 

Part of that is due to factors far removed from the scope of employment.  Part of that is because a lot of people--from my experience somewhere between 50-80 percent--are terrible job seekers.  Part of that is people are happy where they are at and have no incentive to change.  Part of it is people have plans that will pay off for them later, but come with current compromises.  Part of it is that many people have no ambition and take whatever they are handed.  Part of it is some people are so terrified of risk that they stick with the safety of the present over the opportunity to move on to greater things.

 

All that said, it still doesn't detract from the reality that those opportunities exist, and it is your own fault for not pursuing available opportunities for your betterment.

 

 

I very much doubt that fry cooks working double shifts and needing food stamps to supplement his income is 'happy' with where he is at in life. Especially not if there is someone hiring literally everyone and pay them 90.000 dollars a year for work that requires no prior experience or degree. I also very much doubt that being a fry cook on welfare is part of some master plan that will make them rich later. And the idea that people have no ambition beyond fry cook also seems rather dubious. Sure, for some people thats maybe enough, but most people aspire to more than frying stuff all day for little pay. And being scared to move is kinda logical when every resource you earn goes straight into basic necessities. At that point, you can't afford to lose more income with a risk like that. Also, there have been some very interesting studies to how poverty affects peoples decision making ability. The results show that poverty has a significant effect on how people make decisions, and how those decisions are generally bad on the long term, but focus on the short term. 

 

Perhaps we should give poor people a break, rather than call them ambitionless and bad decision makers for not seeing or grasping the oh so obvious opportunities for high paying jobs that apparantly exist everywhere. This basically comes down to victim blaming and we shouldn't be okay with that. 

 

 

Depends.  Something like being an electrician, yes.  Others literally only require that you can move your arms and legs and follow instructions.

 

Again, I very much doubt that. Sure, those jobs exist, but they are generally not the kind of job that pays 90k a year. 

 

 

One of the things I have come to realize is that most people who say "I can't do this" could have actually done it.  Learning not to accept this attitude from yourself is one of those "better decisions" that tends to impact career success.  A lot of people won't do this, and they will shut themselves out of opportunities because of it.

 

No, I know myself and I know my strengths and weaknesses. I'm just not very good with physical labor. On top of that, I kinda hate physical labor. I would be very unhappy if I had to work as an electrician or a carpenter or construction worker all day. Yes, it shuts me out of opportunities, I'm well aware that if I just want to work any kind of job anywhere would get me a job sooner. But it could be a job I'm not very good at it and where I would have someone drag me out of bed every day. How do you think that impacts career advances and my own personal health? An unhappy worker is less productive and less likely to advance. My initial pay would perhaps be higher, but I would be stuck on that as well. 

 

Of course, I realize that landing a dream job is pretty much impossible, and that whatever job I get probably has a lot of aspects I hate. But even so, if its in a field that naturally interests me, even if the work itself isn't great or fun, I can still derive some satisfaction from the fact that I work in the general field that I enjoy, and it serves as an incentive to advance within the field to a point where I do have a job that I mostly enjoy. 

 

In general, PhD's do cost money, they cost a lot of money, and if the PhD student is getting any sort of income from it, it is extremely minimal (often less than $2,000/year).  It often takes a person around 20 years to recover the cost of the PhD from the extra income he/she earned as a result of the PhD.

 

Note to self, don't try to get an PhD in the United States

 

 

It's most certainly true in Texas.  I have been hired to do work I wasn't remotely qualified to perform simply because I was available and had heard of the software they were using.  I have met a manager so hard pressed for people that she was literally attempting to hire random building visitors she never met before.  I drive to work past multiple businesses with "Now Hiring X.  Apply Within" signs or "Hiring welders.  No experience necessary" signs.  I can't turn on the radio without being barraged by companies advertising that they are looking for workers.  I passed by a dozen "craftworker recruiting and training" centers just going to lunch today.  Some companies are so desperate they are creating "intern" positions so they can suck up high school students who are willing to turn a wrench for the summer in exchange for some cash.

 

You can literally stumble across companies that are hiring simply by walking down the street.  It's been going like this for years now and the worker shortages are only getting worse.

 

Well, great for Texas, and the people who live within a reasonable distance of those places. But again, thats not gonna help people who are unemployed outside of an hour driving distance from those places. Unless they can move, which is pretty difficult for people on welfare. It costs money they don't have. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

This discussion has gone rather far afield.  Batting our fingers around the employment problems of various classes is more a social problem than a political one.  Perhaps we should return to the subject of American Politics.

[Duke87 1,070]

As for the issue of poorly payed fry cooks dragging down the economy, that is a bit more complicated. In terms of raw totals, low paid cooks will drag down the economy from what it could be. At the same time, other professions can easily swamp out the negative effects of their poor wages. In Houston, energy workers are the employment metric that determines the health of the city's economy. An army of poorly paid fast food workers will not hurt Houston's economy if the oil & gas industry is doing well. If the oil companies are doing poorly, no other profession can make up for the loss of the energy sector's buying power. So, no, there aren't enough high paying trade positions to support all the low paid fry cooks, but there doesn't need to be. You only need to convert a moderate portion of them to notice a significant difference in the health of the economy.

Okay, but then what of all the other poorly paid fast food workers?

I daresay the economy isn't truly healthy if it isn't helping them.

[AkemiAzula 280]

A coworker of mine who knew this guy was rung up the other day by the guy who had moved to Texas and become successful in oil and was hiring well paid positions at his well or whatever its called.

Now my coworker lives here in the UK but was asked if he was interested becausr they had known each other. He had no more experience than Joe Cowboy in Dallas did but because they had known each other he was given the firdt opportunity.

He turned it down owing to having settled down with a girl and children so I said to him well I am single so could he send my details to this guy. And he says he would love to do that but he wouldn't hire me because he doesn't know me. Nothing to do with qualifications. This coworker says you have to 'put yourself out there' and take risks.

All I know is until I got my job at a supermarket I had had a door to door sales job I couldn't afford to commute to, a despatch officer role paying below minimum wage and various voluntary unpaid work.

And I had studied business and was actively looking for office jobs for five years.

But of course you wouldn't want yet more immigrants taking your jobs so don't fear I'm gunna go over there and 'put myself out there' whatever that implies lol

Having said all that I'd be happy doing a lousy job if I could afford to buy a flat so I didn't have to live with mother. If houses weren't so expensive people wouldn't complain about their deadend jobs so much but when a rent leaves you with just enough money to get by without a car or anything like that it is hardly an inspiring state of things for would be Thatcherites

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Yet another hat in the ring from the Republicans

 

This chap seems to be a real hawk.  He wants American boots on the ground in the Iraq/Syria mess among otther things.  It wouldn't be the first time that the U.S. used gunboat diplomacy.

 

He'd have to have a 'no surrender' policy for the troops because having them cooked in a cage would cause real trouble at home.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Here is an interesting tidbit regarding American politics and economics. 69-98% of economists agree on each of the following:
1. A ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available.
2. Tariffs and import quotas usually reduce general economic welfare.
3. Flexible and floating exchange rates offer an effective international monetary arrangement.
4. Fiscal policy (e.g., tax cut and/or government expenditure increase) has a significant stimulative impact on a less than fully employed economy.
5. The United States should not restrict employers from outsourcing work to foreign countries.
6. Economic growth in developed countries like the United States leads to greater levels of well-being.
7. The United States should eliminate agricultural subsidies.
8. An appropriately designed fiscal policy can increase the long-run rate of capital formation.
9. Local and state governments should eliminate subsidies to professional sports franchises.
10. If the federal budget is to be balanced, it should be done over the business cycle rather than yearly.
11. The gap between Social Security funds and expenditures will become unsustainably large within the next 50 years if current policies remain unchanged.
12. Cash payments increase the welfare of recipients to a greater degree than do transfers-in-kind of equal cash value.
13. A large federal budget deficit has an adverse effect on the economy.
14. The redistribution of income in the United States is a legitimate role for the government.
15. Inflation is caused primarily by too much growth in the money supply.
16. The United States should not ban genetically modified crops.
17. A minimum wage increases unemployment among young and unskilled workers.
18. The government should restructure the welfare system along the lines of a “negative income tax.”
19. Effluent taxes and marketable pollution permits represent a better approach to pollution control than the imposition of pollution ceilings.
20. Government subsidies on ethanol in the United States should be reduced or eliminated.

I don't agree with 12 enough to think that the government giving general purpose cash to the poor would be beneficial (I think that housing subsidies should be given to all citizens and refugees and that this should be possible to pay rent and not just mortgages and I think that a guaranteed minimum income in the form of Nutrition Credits (an improved version of EBT) would be far better) but I am not an economist; I am merely a utilitarian with inadequate knowledge. I think that the unemployment rate mentioned in 17 could be mitigated by a tiered minimum wage (that depends on education (and education should only be mandatory until age 16 instead of 18 but have public school through grade 12 remain free for students), multiples of 10 hours of work every week, and age).

Sources:

Richard M. Alston, J. R. Kearl, and Michael B. Vaughn, “Is There Consensus among Economists in the 1990s?” American Economic Review (May 1992): 203–209; Dan Fuller and Doris Geide-Stevenson, “Consensus among Economists Revisited,” Journal of Economics Education (Fall 2003): 369–387; Robert Whaples, “Do Economists Agree on Anything? Yes!” Economists’ Voice (November 2006): 1–6; Robert Whaples, “The Policy Views of American Economic Association Members: The Results of a New Survey,” Econ Journal Watch (September 2009): 337–348.
Compiled by Cengage and copied by me

What do you think?

--Ocram

[Duke87 1,070]

The important caveat is that what's good for the economy (statistically) is not necessarily good for the majority of individuals. Something that hurts most people a little and helps the remaining few by a net larger amount is "good for the economy" in a broad sense, but that doesn't make it good policy.

Minimum wage is a classic example. Yes, price floors and price ceilings according to simple models of supply and demand will create shortages or surpluses, and economists for this reason generally oppose them. Problem is this is a rather simplistic and highly theoretical take on the matter.

As I see it, ideal capitalism would require no regulation - but, like with the ideal gas law, real world capitalism can never be ideal. Ideal capitalism would require an infinite number of competitors in every market, or at least a sufficiently large number that all buyers always have access to plenty of alternative sellers. This is totally unrealistic. So, instead, we're left with using regulation to try and counter imperfections in the system as it exists in the real world.

Back to the minimum wage, yeah there can be cases where some form of work might not be worth more than $3 an hour and having to pay $7.25 (or whatever local minimum wage is) causes empoyers to avoid hiring people for such work, thus in theory reducing the number of jobs available. And thereore, the economist argues, the minimum wage places a drag on the economy. But the problem with this argument is that human labor isn't just a commodity to be bought and sold. The people doing the work have bills to pay, families to feed, and lives to try and have some quality in. Giving them a job that pays next to nothing isn't necessarily much of an improvement for them over being unemployed.

Besides, a lot of people in near minimum wage positions are working two jobs just to try and get by. If some of those jobs get eliminated on account of the minimum wage being raised, the people working them actually benefit since now they can make the same amount of money working fewer hours. I.e. so what if one of their two jobs goes poof, the remaining one will make up for it by paying more.

[hym 358]

Besides, a lot of people in near minimum wage positions are working two jobs just to try and get by. If some of those jobs get eliminated on account of the minimum wage being raised, the people working them actually benefit since now they can make the same amount of money working fewer hours. I.e. so what if one of their two jobs goes poof, the remaining one will make up for it by paying more.

 

If you're working 30 hours per week at one job and 30 hours per week at another, and one of those jobs gets cut, you will likely need to double your wage at the other job just to keep the weekly income at the same level.  Odds are good that the average American isn't going to get his/her income doubled by a minimum wage hike.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

My definition of utilitarianism is a course of action that improves the outcomes of the most people by the greatest amount. When it comes to economics, I think that the "slices of pie" up to 2 standard deviations away from median and mode should be enlarged by as much as possible. This can be accomplished by increasing efficiency without reducing equality so each slice is bigger or increasing equality of average incomes with high incomes without reducing efficiency so the largest slices are smaller, the smallest slices are unchanged and the majority of the slices get bigger. I purposely said 2 standard deviations away from average because that represents 95% of the populace. The top 2.5% have too much and most of the bottom 2.5% cannot be brought out of poverty easily (thus it is illogical to put in extra effort to help them).

Instead of rent ceilings, rent control could be limited to a limit of how much rent rates can increase each year for current renters who remain in place. This can be combined with subsidized housing where high rise (and/or bronze certified LEED) spartan apartment complexes on grey field (abandoned buildings with little to no contamination) or brown field (low value property unsuitable for agriculture) property near or in the city can be rented with the value of housing credits alone.

Combining the idea of pollution tax with lack of tariffs could be used to increase the competitiveness of local, domestic, and nearby (with eco friendly shipping) environmentally friendly industry against highly polluting Chinese (and Indian, and other developing countries with lax environmental laws) industry.

--Ocram

[LexusInfernus 908]

If you're working 30 hours per week at one job and 30 hours per week at another, and one of those jobs gets cut, you will likely need to double your wage at the other job just to keep the weekly income at the same level.  Odds are good that the average American isn't going to get his/her income doubled by a minimum wage hike.

 

Isn't the plan to raise the minimum wage from 7,50 to 15 dollars? Thats doubling the income. 

 

Also, make no mistake, the current minimum wage is not even a subsistence wage, given that people need to work double jobs and still require government benefits to just get around. People in that position are not good consumers. Raise their wages, and they will become good consumers. At the short term you might have a temporary loss, but in the long run the economy only benefits. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Quoting statisticians is like quoting a set of meterologists.  Both are dependent on past performance to make predictions for the future and both are about as accurate.

[hym 358]

If you're working 30 hours per week at one job and 30 hours per week at another, and one of those jobs gets cut, you will likely need to double your wage at the other job just to keep the weekly income at the same level. Odds are good that the average American isn't going to get his/her income doubled by a minimum wage hike.

Isn't the plan to raise the minimum wage from 7,50 to 15 dollars? Thats doubling the income.

The most aggressive proposal I have seen only raises the federal minimum wage to $12/hour. Previously, the Obama administration had only asked for a $9/hour minimum wage.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

The only place where the minimum wage might double would be NYC. It would also benefit the most. New York uses the federal minimum wage ($7.50) and NYC has an extremely high cost of living. It would also benefit the most from a minimum wage hike. NYC has the biggest income inequality between workers in the country (Lake Providence is worse if you include non-workers because it has massive unemployment on one side of the lake and wealthy retirees on the other side).

--Ocram

[LexusInfernus 908]

Isn't Seattle raising the minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour? 

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Seattle's minimum wage was previously about $10 and small businesses get a 5 year period to adjust (big corporations already have to pay $15/hr). This is a 50% increase, not an instant 100% increase. However, Seattle is crumbling due to poor political decisions, corruption, and bad business deals. New infrastructure projects are going over budget and overtime for "beautification" while the important part is crumbling (see: 405 floating bridge, Big Bertha, Link light rail, Mercer Mess). The current mayor (whom I voted against) would rather see the software boom go away than have the gentrification of his home neighborhood (which owes its current character to gentrification, like San Francisco's Castro District, Capitol Hill became a "gayborhood" (this is the term used by the mayor and activists) after relatively wealthy people pushed out poor urban ethnic minorities from the area. The night life and entertainment started to diversify as property values rose and new jobs from nearby neighborhoods started to become available (South Lake Union's tech boom for Seattle) so now the second wave of gentrification is pushing out the demographics of the first wave of gentrification).

I leave Seattle in August and will likely move to Texas or Alaska for employment.

--Ocram

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Let's remember that $15./hour = $30,000 per year if you take the standard 40 hour work week with two weeks unpaid vacation.  At today's prices, that is not a living wage for a breadwinner with two kids and a non-working wife to support.  At best it's "third class journeys and dinners of bread and water." -- Sir William Gilbert.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Most minimum wage workers either earn good tips or are unskilled, uneducated, disabled or supported by their families (or a combination).

I feel great satisfaction when people learn their lessons the hard way, especially if they do the exact opposite of what they are advised and they come out stronger and wiser but humbled from a negative experience.

--Ocram

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Well, Marco, you know the proverb: "If it doesn't kill you, it will make you stronger".

[LexusInfernus 908]

Well, Marco, you know the proverb: "If it doesn't kill you, it will make you stronger".

That proverb is total nonsense. Poverty has never made anyone stronger or better. 

[Larks2242 251]

 

Well, Marco, you know the proverb: "If it doesn't kill you, it will make you stronger".

That proverb is total nonsense. Poverty has never made anyone stronger or better. 

 

 

Have to disagree there,  Without a safety net, people figure out they actually have to learn how to survive rather then not worry and just let things go.

 

 

In other  news, Dick Mountjoy has died, If  he had won back  in 2006, the US would be a much different place, and the NSA and immigration may not have been so out of control.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Mountjoy

[LexusInfernus 908]

Have to disagree there,  Without a safety net, people figure out they actually have to learn how to survive rather then not worry and just let things go.

Sorry, but if thats true, poverty would have solved itself long ago. 

[krbe 193]

He said "survive". Not lead a dignified, fulfilling life. I guess some people are fond of such structures, and who am I to disagree?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

As long as we have bleeding heart socialists with us, we will have the "poor" to justify their existence.  It is not that long ago that we had beggars in the streets (in some places we still do), but most homeless people today are there by choice since social assistance alternatives are so common.  Never saw a socialist yet would wouldn't be happy unless he could spend everyone else's money.

 

"Y' haven't an arm, Y' haven't a leg

"Y'll have to be put in a basket to beg."

-- From the lyric of "Johnny, I Hardly Knew Ye".

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Panhandling was made illegal here a few years ago but that did not eliminate all panhandlers. I have recognized some wealthy people (children supported by wealthy parents) panhandling. It is a scam. Lazy people get the oldest clothing that fits them comfortably (sometimes going to thrift shops) and don't clean them for a while, then write on a piece of cardboard to make a tidy profit if they don't get caught by the police.

 

There are many ways a person or group can fail and come out better. California is learning a lesson about economics with its financial woes (such as CALPERS) and about water management (golf courses and private pools should get water cut off if the common people and agriculture are to survive without massive expenditures on desalination). I hope my sister learned her lesson to finish her antibiotics (she told me that she had never finished any course of antibiotics in her life) after recovering from Scarlet Fever. If she gets Rheumatic Fever and dies because she believes her herbalist more than her doctor, that will be a real shame, loss, and tragedy. Of course, we (her family members) have stressed that is a possibility if she doesn't finish her antibiotics the next time she is prescribed them.

 

There are other examples I can think of but I don't want to write a text wall just to prove a point that I doubt I can convince die-hard "activists" anyway.

 

--Ocram

[Duke87 1,070]

If you're working 30 hours per week at one job and 30 hours per week at another, and one of those jobs gets cut, you will likely need to double your wage at the other job just to keep the weekly income at the same level.  Odds are good that the average American isn't going to get his/her income doubled by a minimum wage hike.

 

No, but demand in the labor market is never perfectly elastic. If the minimum wage is raised, some adjustment will occur in the form of reduced payroll, but some will occur in the form of increased prices, and some will occur in the form of reduced profits. The result is that, on average, a minimum wage worker will make more money, since only some of the increased labor costs will be offset with job cuts.

 

Besides, thanks to inflation, the minimum wage effectively decreases every year if no action is taken. As things stand, the federal minimum wage is well below it's inflation adjusted peak (graph). Which is why even more important than simply raising it in nominal dollars is to index it to inflation. There is no reason why this isn't already done other than that so the rats and snakes in congress can continue using it as a political bargaining chip.

[hym 358]

If you're working 30 hours per week at one job and 30 hours per week at another, and one of those jobs gets cut, you will likely need to double your wage at the other job just to keep the weekly income at the same level. Odds are good that the average American isn't going to get his/her income doubled by a minimum wage hike.

No, but demand in the labor market is never perfectly elastic. If the minimum wage is raised, some adjustment will occur in the form of reduced payroll, but some will occur in the form of increased prices, and some will occur in the form of reduced profits. The result is that, on average, a minimum wage worker will make more money, since only some of the increased labor costs will be offset with job cuts.

The problem with this debate is you can easily craft any framework that supports your argument.

For example: Suppose that John Doe works two minimum wage jobs at $7.25/hour for a total of 58 hours per week. (Each job is 29 hours so the employer doesn't have to provide health insurance.)

John's weekly pay (ignoring taxes and other payroll deductions) is $421. If John loses one of those jobs because of employer cost-cutting, John's new weekly pay is $348. This amounts to a staggering 17% pay cut just as prices are rising to accommodate the increased labor costs.

Using the $12/hour proposal currently being suggested, John could restore his weekly paycheck to it's original value by picking up an extra 6 hours at his remaining job, but that would only be possible by the federal government rolling back the definition of full-time worker to 37 hours per week, instead of the current 30 hours per week. (Remember, both his jobs only offered 29 hours of work each week because the employers refused to provide him health insurance.)

While, on the whole, a minimum wage hike may be a good thing, I think a lot of people are going to suddenly find themselves worse off than before. McDonald's doesn't have much incentive to pay someone to take your order at the drive-thru when the cost of developing a McDonald's app that takes the order for you is the same price or cheaper than the human.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

"Spare a penny for Belisarius" - A sign around the neck of the beggar Belisarius, who as a general attempted a coup against an ancient king.  He failed, was apprehended, impoverished and blinded, then set outside the palace gates to beg.

 

There are not enough examples of this type in our modern society, even though the methods may be different.  Nothing is "too big to fail".

[Duke87 1,070]

Using the $12/hour proposal currently being suggested, John could restore his weekly paycheck to it's original value by picking up an extra 6 hours at his remaining job, but that would only be possible by the federal government rolling back the definition of full-time worker to 37 hours per week, instead of the current 30 hours per week. (Remember, both his jobs only offered 29 hours of work each week because the employers refused to provide him health insurance.)

 

Or if the federal government requires employers to contribute to the cost of health insurance for ALL employees, not just "full time" ones.

 

Yes, this is not going to be politically attractive at all but it would eliminate the perverse incentive employers have to keep employees strictly part time, and in doing so avoid the problem stated here.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Analysis by CBC's Don Pittis.

 

Gum batting about minimum wages will not solve anything.  The capitalist system has the bit in its teeth and needs a whisperer to tame it.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Patriot Act set to expire June 1st?

 

All of it or only  some of it? 

 

Why can't the Senate pass a bill by simple majority?  Or is it only some bills?