quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that the distinction that DB is making is an important one. There is a big difference between those who works hard, have acquired a necessary set of skills, and who provide a needed products or services and those who, by dint of already having access to capital make billions by making other billionaires even richer. Often, they are concentrating wealth rather than producing it. They don't necessarily create anything of value or create jobs. Conflating the different types of wealth-holders feeds into the conservative narrative that concern about income disparity is really only envy and greed. It contributes to the idea that there is no systemic injustice, just a bunch of whiny, lazy have-nots.
A large portion of my friends being conservatives, it gets pretty frustrating talking to them about concepts like systematic inequality, economic oppression/injustice, worker exploitation, and various means of rectifying this (usually a conversation whenever "obamacare" comes up) because they've bought that narrative hook, line, and sinker.
I know this is an issue you're fairly passionate about Kate. What's your impression of Lyrhawn and my (and SW, sam and orincoro's) discussion about a GMI and it's implementation? Of the different things causing or exacerbating poverty nowadays - the hoarding of vast amounts of capital by the very few, educational barriers, cultural barriers, transportation issues, the ghettoizing of certain racial and cultural groups and the lack of opportunities in said ghettos, and I'm sure plenty of things I'm not mentioning... - how much of a positive impact do you think a GMI would have? It certainly seems like the easiest solution to implement from a top-down perspective. (not that it would by any means be *easy*)
I think that it all needs to be addressed. GMI is a start, certainly. Getting people decent food and safe, clean, private places to live should be a bare minimum for a civilized country. But that shouldn't be the only fix. Another fairly easy fix would be the kinds of public works programs that we had during the Depression. Goodness knows, too much of our infrastructure hasn't been updated since then, but also things like the Federal Arts/Music/Writers/Theatre Programs. There was some really good work done in those and they are not terribly expensive considering. (If you think that good work will automatically be commercial and suffers from state-sponsorship, look at the BBC.) Increased investment in education and public transportation and scientific research. Healthcare of course. All these are eminently doable with upper level tax rates like we had during the 1950s and ridding ourselves of the pernicious notion that poverty was somehow a moral failure and helping people was encouraging sinfulness.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, somewhat related to the topic on hand: Walmart is raising it's minimum wage to $9/hour, and there seems to be a general trend among retailers to increase their employee's pay after around a decade of stasis. Costco famously pays it's employees ~$20/hour and has been rewarded with loyal, well trained employees who don't steal from the company and are happy with their jobs, which has allowed them to survive competition that pays their average employee half of what they do. The market has been doing very well as of late, it would be nice to see average wages in retail creep towards ~$15/hour, so we could get a minimum wage increase without so much resistance. (This all depends on how the elections turn out in 2016, unfortunately)
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
WASHINGTON—In response to the Republican senator from Texas announcing his presidential candidacy, Time magazine subscribers told reporters Monday that they are bracing for the inevitable issue featuring a close-up of Ted Cruz’s face. “I don’t know whether it will be next week or 10 months from now, but I know that sooner or later I’ll open the mailbox and find that face staring at me,” said Time subscriber Susan Bartlett, who was gearing up for a glossy cover photo of the Republican candidate bearing a stern expression while half hidden in shadow or an untouched smiling portrait accompanied by the words “The Game Changer” or “The Firebrand” in a large sans-serif font. “Right now, I’m steeling myself for when I open the magazine and come face-to-face with a full-page shot of Cruz standing in front of his desk with a wall of books in the background. And I might as well get used to the fact that there will be one casual picture of him wearing jeans.” The nation’s Time subscribers added that they had not yet prepared for the eventuality of an issue with a close-up of likely presidential candidate Scott Walker.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
he is the most loathed person on capitol hill by a significant margin. he is dramatically emblematic of how i described that the tea party would become too much of a liability for even the GOP. His tax and financial policies are demented.
The republicans are going to throw him under the biggest bus they can find, then kick it into reverse to make sure he's absolutely dead.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My favorite thing was when he said, "We need to do away with the IRS. Then we'll take all those agents and send them to defend the Southern border! Now I know I'm being a bit tongue in cheek, but think about it..."
I stopped listening at that point because seriously, that's what he wanted me to imagine.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
“It’s a free country,” [Ted Cruz's dad] said. “If these people need to practice their holy rites of atheism, they can do so, as long as they are in clearly-marked encampments far away from the rest of us.” “While they’re in their Heathen Zones, they’re free to dance naked around the fire, brand the mark of the Devil on their flesh or whatever else they want to do,” he added. “Of course, if they step one foot outside the electrified fence we shoot them between the eyes. Two or three times, just to be sure.”
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
UGh. Newslo, the daily currant, they can all go to hell. Facebook is apparently working on de-ranking these sites so that they won't show up for casual readers. It's a fairly major bug in the social news platform.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
haha really, he's the Andrew Breitbart protege, panty stealing rape barn sex-boat-dungeon-entrapment, fake pimp guy who helped destroy ACORN
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Basically, all those "acorn is engaging in voter fraud!!!" stories? Mr. O'Keefe is the selectively-edited video mastermind that started it all.
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Out of all the potential candidates for 2016, who would you all like to see as the next president?
I really want to like Warren and I support her anti-Wall Street rhetoric, but it grinds my gears a bit the way she oversimplifies finance into platitudes. Like her quote "If banks can borrow at a .75% interest rate then so can students." I'm all for investing in education and we seriously need to work on our student loans system, but that statement is pretty lame.
And if it has to be a Republican, the only candidate I don't hate is Bush.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of all the potential Democratic candidates, I'll admit to being quite taken by Warren at the moment. She's maybe the only one I'm actively excited about...assuming she even runs, which I think is doubtful.
On the Republican side, the only one I don't seriously want to punch in the face is Marco Rubio. He has an honest, likeable quality I can't quite describe, and actually has some surprisingly new and fresh ideas, for a right-wing Republican. I still don't want him to win, but I wouldn't check real estate prices in Toronto if he did.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Real estate prices in Toronto are high. Look at what the places in love it or list it are going row.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Urg Rubio is out for me. Anyone that signed the Tom Cotton letter should be legally ineligible.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rubio is a shrill little whiny kid when you come right down to it if you've seen his questioning of Kerry on the Iran negotiations; and Jeb Bush has the problem that his "team" includes virtually 100% overlap with the previous Bush team and Reagan's; I think war with Iran is guaranteed if he is elected.
That and well, hello permanent conservative majority in the USSC since RBG is retiring soon. I'm not even sure I'd object to a Frank Underwood president so long as he was a democrat who'd appoint a democratic leaning judge.
I like Warren, she's great, though I'm hesitant to believe she can win when a majority of the country votes against their own interests when it comes to economic policies or believes that the economy works exactly like a household budget. Also while Trollbama has done a lot of good using executive orders recently there's still a limit to what she can do without a democratic Senate and Congress.
Afterall Obama was in policy, effectively a Third Way Clinton democrat and neoliberal in policy, he had a lot of corporate backers because they ultimately knew Obama wouldn't rock the boat too much; there's no such certainty with Warren.
In that respect, Warren can do more good in the Senate while Hilary is a more likely two-term win; giving Dems the chance to replace Scalia and insure a progressive replacement for RBG.
Warren *has* done a lot of good in the Senate so far, and seems to be gathering quite a bit of influence in revitalizing the progressive caucus, so there's that.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
wow what a surprise hillary clinton the next president of the united states of america decides ... she is running for president what a totally unexpected move i am falling asleep midway through writing this senten
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
that would have been awesome because the headline the very next day would be "Republican Party announces party-wide vegetarianism"
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Yeah. There was a big story here recently about how a 54 year old man walked 21 miles EVERY DAY to get to work and back. He had to walk from downtown Detroit all the way up to Rochester Hills, which is crazy. He took the bus for a small chunk of it, but there were huge gaps where he'd walk for miles. He didn't get home until almost midnight every night, and had to leave at like 4am to get there. And he was never late for years. The problem was that most of the cities between his job and his house didn't have buses. So he had to walk for miles to get to the next bus system. It's a mess around here.
I've been thinking about this story a lot this week.
My car's been in the shop all week - they had to order parts from the mainland halfway through fixing it - so I've been taking the bus to work every day.
It's about a mile from my house to the bus stop, and another 3/4 of a mile or so from the closest bus stop to my work, so I spend about an hour riding the bus and 3.5 miles of walking round trip, which isn't bad at all, other than the last mile walking home. (I live on the side of a mountain, the closest bus stop is at the base of the mountain, so the walk home is entirely uphill)
Anyway, the other day just after I got off the bus and starting walking home, it unexpectedly started raining cats and dogs and I so walked for 20 minutes or so completely soaked.
While I was walking, I remembered this thread and started thinking about this guy. I started wondering what it was like to walk for hours every day in rain, sleet, snow for decades. For me it's just a funny story I can tell my friends, and I know next week I'll have my car back and not have to walk in the rain. Heck, even when I was in boot camp and had to do hikes in the rain or sleep on the wet ground or whatever, I knew it was transitory and I would be done with it soon enough.
I'm trying to wrap my head around knowing that it's a permenant condition. Having to make that same miserable 21 mile walk every day for decades, knowing that you're not getting any richer or building towards some goal, knowing that your situation isn't going to change... I can't even imagine that sort of courage and tenacity. It's incredible.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think he as the exception really helps underscore how so many people can't escape their circumstances. He's exceptional, most people can't fathom doing that without losing hope and giving up.
Now imagine whole communities living like that. Talk of bootstraps seems condescending. I'm speaking generally not about you. I'm thinking about this in relation to Baltimore. Hopeless despair. Not everyone can walk for decades. Some people need hope.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
You know, that story always makes me horribly uncomfortable. Because while his dedication to his routine was indeed exceptional, it was also exceptionally stupid. There was no genuine merit in his decision to spend hours each day walking to a job that didn't pay enough for him to buy a junker car or relocate. It only looks like a sensible choice if you don't actually evaluate it; in reality, it's a remarkable level of dedication to a bad decision.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
All things considered, I'm not convinced he had access to a better or equal job any closer.
But he's also representative of a larger problem. There aren't jobs in the City, and what jobs are there actually tend to be done by white people coming in for the burbs from 9-5 and then leaving. Most of the jobs black people do are service jobs in the suburbs, but the burbs put up a moat around the City to make it hard for black people to get in.
This isn't new. White people set it up in the 40s, or at least started it then. It was pretty well cemented by the 60s. Part of what helped the Montgomery Bus Boycotts were suburban white house wives who had to drive to pick up their cleaning ladies in the city because without the buses, the cleaning ladies couldn't make it to the wealthy suburbs.
The suburbs are exorbitantly expensive compared to Detroit. And the suburbs are where all the jobs are. Moving out of the City is hard, and finding a job that pays well IN the City is hard. So hundreds of thousands in Detroit (and millions around the country), take a long, long daily trip outside the City to work, made more difficult by the fact that people in the burbs don't see the value in supporting regional mass transit.
It's an unfortunate situation, but I'm not convinced it's because of a bad decision.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
You know, that story always makes me horribly uncomfortable. Because while his dedication to his routine was indeed exceptional, it was also exceptionally stupid. There was no genuine merit in his decision to spend hours each day walking to a job that didn't pay enough for him to buy a junker car or relocate. It only looks like a sensible choice if you don't actually evaluate it; in reality, it's a remarkable level of dedication to a bad decision.
I think one of the less obvious ways privilege rears it's head in these situations is when it comes to the ability to make well informed choices. Or even how to go about getting the information to make those informed choices.(And to be clear here, I'm talking about class privilege or perhaps social, if that's a Thing)
I think about the numerous areas of my life I struggled as a young adult when I first started living on my own at 18, and all of the stupid or idiotic choices I made, and often wish I could go back and relive them because I could frankly do a much better job of living my life then with what I know now.
The interesting thing, though, as I've done a lot of writing and introspection, is that of all of the huge steps forward I've made in almost every area of my life, relatively little of it can be credited to experience. (i.e, doing the wrong thing enough times that I realize it doesn't work and magically figuring out what the right thing is) In almost every case - ranging from personal finances to interpersonal skills to leadership training to professional education to romance, etc etc etc... - I've been fortunate enough to have a group of wise older women and men who have given me extremely valuable advice, and have invested an incredible amount of time and passion into mentoring me.
And this seems to hold mostly true of everyone who's life story I've seen. People obviously vary greatly in levels of intelligence and some people seem to have a better knack for making wise decisions, but when I converse with friends and family my age and background (socially and financially) who have been much more or less successful than I have been, the biggest factors seem to be:
1) Who they associate with and respect 2) How good they are at listening to wise advice 3) How good they are at applying that advice to to their life and acting on it
One of the most successful men my age I know came from a family where he had a lot of older brothers who regularly mentored him from a young age. When he applied for college, they helped him with his application and went over his class schedule with him. They helped him apply for scholarships and grants, helped set him up as an RA so he had free lodging. They've given him pretty outstanding legal and business advice throughout the past 2 years as he's launched his own business. Even though I guess he could claim to be a "self made man" since afaik they haven't actually given him a penny, the time and wisdom they invested in him will probably generate millions of dollars of additional income over his lifetime just financially speaking - and I think there are greater, less tangible returns too.
. . .
This is getting pretty long winded, but let's look at James. What Lyrhawn said as far as cost of living in the suburbs isn't entirely true - the very nice, much larger suburban apartment he lives in now actually costs him $80 less a month than the $880 he was paying to rent a relatively shitty place in the city.
But how would he know that? Like, if he has a distorted conception of just how expensive things are in the suburbs or how big of a wage gap there really is between him and the middle class (and a lot of people in his situation I've met do), then he may not have even considered looking because in his mind it's already impossible. He's got nobody in his life to tell him otherwise - from his exploitative landlady/ex-girlfriend who he's had to file a restraining order against now to the neighbors threatening him or hitting him up for money before he even got paid, it sounds like he didn't *have* anyone in his life to tell him any different.
The sad thing is he could probably maintain the lifestyle he has *right now* (I mean, after moving) off of his current income. He pays less in rent, transportation means he has access to better and much cheaper food so he's almost certainly paying less for food, he has a lot more free time to cook and plan... with careful management of his money and budgeting, he could probably maintain his (still very modest) lifestyle at the ~$21,000/year he makes as a single man - even easier if he had a roommate. (from running over a few numbers in my head, his single biggest expense after rent would be car insurance... how he's paying more in a month for insurance than I pay in a year, I don't know)
But when you're living paycheck to paycheck, are in a state of constant physical exhaustion, are convinced things aren't getting any better and have nobody in your life to tell you otherwise... maybe just doing everything you can to keep your job and keep from being homeless is the best and most reasonable choice you can make.
Any attempt on my part to put myself in his shoes is flawed, because I'd be coming in with the huge advantage of knowing quality of life can be much better even at that income level and knowing the steps I would need to take to get there, or at least how to find out. True empathy and understanding in this case is incredibly difficult, if not outright impossible, but I'm not going to make the assumption he's stupid.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jesus, he was paying $800 a month for that house? Either she was insanely, overwhelmingly, dramatically overcharging him, or there's a great hidden story in there about just how incredibly damaging Detroit City property taxes are.
I guess what I would say to that is that, generally, what I said IS true, especially when you consider other barriers to entry like paying security deposits and other start-up fees that often come with moving into a new apartment or rental home. That could be hundreds of extra dollars that most people in Detroit probably couldn't afford. My guess is that his windfall allowed him to move into a cheaper place where before he might not have had the money to contemplate that decision (assuming, as you said, he even knew the decision was available to him).
quote:how he's paying more in a month for insurance than I pay in a year, I don't know
Sad face. You pay less than $212 a YEAR? I think mine is something like $130 a month. Michigan has the most expensive auto insurance in the country. Detroit skews those numbers upward dramatically. Even if he had been able to afford a junker in Detroit, he never would have been able to afford to keep it insured, which would have probably cost him 2 to 2.5 times what it costs in Troy to insure even a much crappier car. I think the average yearly auto insurance bill in Detroit is between four and five thousand dollars. He also has a tremendously (from my perspective) expensive car, which makes it more expensive to insure.
In general, there are things that are much more expensive about living in the suburbs, and a few things that are cheaper. Auto insurance is one of the things that's cheaper. Groceries are probably another, since Detroit has only a handful of grocery stores.
posted
The larger point should probably be that it shouldn't matter anyway. I lean toward the "that's a stupid decision" camp, but also that it shouldn't matter in one of the world's richest countries.
"The measure of a nation is how it treats its dumbasses" or something like that. I put it in quotes because someone probably said that before.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Jesus, he was paying $800 a month for that house? Either she was insanely, overwhelmingly, dramatically overcharging him, or there's a great hidden story in there about just how incredibly damaging Detroit City property taxes are.
I guess what I would say to that is that, generally, what I said IS true, especially when you consider other barriers to entry like paying security deposits and other start-up fees that often come with moving into a new apartment or rental home. That could be hundreds of extra dollars that most people in Detroit probably couldn't afford. My guess is that his windfall allowed him to move into a cheaper place where before he might not have had the money to contemplate that decision (assuming, as you said, he even knew the decision was available to him).
Oh, I mostly agree with you, but having lived in both "the ghetto" and rather nice suburbs, I can tell you that the difference isn't so much a matter of required income as it is required *financial stability*.
I think one of the main purposes for a lot of those hidden expenses - whether it's paying a security deposit for an apartment, or paying 6 months of insurance up front plus registration fees for a vehicle, or making a down payment on a house - is to weed out people who are financially unstable. If you're living paycheck to paycheck at a $10.38/hr job, a $800 security deposit on a place plus another $800 up front for the first month of rent just isn't feasible. So instead you pay $220 a week for a place that isn't going to do a credit check, isn't going to demand a security deposit, and that is fine with you paying every payday instead of demanding the money up front.
But if you already had, say, $20,000 in the bank, you could easily move and resettle yourself, start up a new routine still making that $10.38, and then recoup whatever you spent of that $20,000 in a year or two of careful budgeting.
In most cases, when you look at poverty, income isn't as much of a factor as lack of stability. Being poor and living paycheck to paycheck is often times actually *more* expensive, and this is a well documented trend. Between exploitative payday loans for unexpected expenses, obscenely high credit card rates, having to pay more for week-to-week rent, having to pay more for insurance and car loans, having to shop for groceries at crappy convenience stores that severely overcharge, having to pay fees for not having enough money in your bank account... being in poverty is actually a lot more expensive than *not* being in poverty, strangely enough.
quote:Sad face. You pay less than $212 a YEAR?
Well, not quite. I actually pay $216/year. ($18/month)
I drive a 16 year old car that I keep in good condition with a KBB value of about $1,400, and have a perfect driving record. I used to pay around $25/month until I turned 25 last year, then it dropped significantly.
posted
When I was working in international development, one of the things we frequently talked about is that poverty is more than just being poor - it's also the lack of options and choice.
Basically as you've both pointed out, you don't have the money for a security deposit or for transportation or the likely even the time to go and find a new job or house or anything that would make your life even the slightest bit easier.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
Considering the earlier discussion on GMI in this thread, I was hoping you could weigh in with your expert opinion on a proposed $15 minimum wage.
It's a subject that we've been discussing a lot at work, and everyone so far has been decidedly against it for various reasons. I, too, think it's a bad idea mostly because it offers less flexibility and is harder on businesses than a GMI. I've created a list of pros and cons - both economically and socially - and I wonder what your take on the subject is.
Pros: 1) It would reduce or complete eliminate the necessity for Welfare programs like housing assistance, SNAP/foodstamps, the EBT system, etc. for employed people, reducing the burden on taxpayers by billions of dollars every year. (Albeit by transferring that burden to consumers/businesses) 2) It would give a pretty hefty amount of spending power to people in the lowest income brackets, providing a significant boost to the economy. 3) It’s easier to implement and requires less administrative overhead than a GMI.
Cons: 1) It destroys a lot of the incentive to get a better job/some jobs just aren’t worth $15/hour. …This one is probably the biggest one I’ve seen, and it’s a pretty good point. A lot of those entry-level, unskilled labor jobs simply aren’t worth paying someone $15/hour to do, especially considering the sort of jobs that *do* pay that much.
Take the relative I mentioned earlier. She spent 4 years going to college part time to earn a degree, spent half a year in an internship, got certified in her career field, and finally just started working a job as a medical assistant making $15/hour. She worked her ass off to get there, and likewise her husband, after 8 years, has managed to get a job a supervisor at a gas station, which also pays about $16/hour. The $15-$20/hour range right now seems to go to entry level skilled labor or supervisors for unskilled labor – or jobs you work in your mid-20s to early 30s. Suddenly paying a 16 year old fry cook or cashier as much (or more) than his supervisor makes will pretty seriously undermine a lot of the incentive that makes people work so hard to *get* those $15/hour jobs in the first place. Which leads in to the next point:
2) Unlike a GMI, a $15/hour minimum wage doesn’t differentiate between, say, a 16 year old suburban kid working his first part time job and a 35 year old single mother trying to support her family. The only way it really helps create economic equality is incidentally – i.e. because unfortunately a lot of poor people are trapped in those minimum wage jobs through their 30s and 40s, and $15/hour minimum wage helps them incidentally, but there are a lot better ways to help those people while also not absurdly overpaying everyone else.
3) The $15/hour minimum wage takes a lot of the burden off of taxpayers and puts it on consumers. With the majority of taxes in our country being paid by the wealthy, but the majority of consumption being done by the middle and working classes, this will actually hurt the middle class and drive up inflation. (This one seems somewhat dodgy to me, but I decided to include it)
4) The most popular argument, a $15/hour minimum wage will primarily hurt small businesses – who have to run on razor thin profit margins just to be competitive – a lot more than it will hurt big businesses, who generally post much higher profits and can afford to absorb some of the impact without raising prices.
From what I can see, a GMI would cover all of the pros (except #3, obviously) while avoiding all of the cons. For better analysis, I think a 15hmw vs no 15hmw+no GMI is probably needed as well.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
A minimum wage increase would actually be pretty pointless for reducing poverty, it doesn't even really matter between jurisdictions.
quote:A year ago, I brought attention to a Canadian Public Policy article on poverty and the minimum wage in Ontario. A notable finding of the study was that the overlap between those who earn minimum wage and those who are in poverty was surprisingly small, small enough to conclude - as I did - that "increasing the minimum wage is only slightly more effective as an anti-poverty measure as would be distributing money at random across households." A few months later, I came across a study that found much the same results in the United States.
I knew that policy analysts in the Quebec government were working on a similar project and had heard that they had found similar results.
More dependent on jurisdiction, a low income family can actually face pretty punitive marginal tax rates due to how they lose certain benefits and tax credits that are normally offered to low income individuals. In some cases, the entire gain might be taxed away anyway
quote: It has long been known that single mothers on social assistance are particularly vulnerable to the welfare trap: not only are their payments clawed back as they earn wage income, they risk losing their non-monetary benefits. In many cases, these parents face marginal income tax rates of well over 100%.
Finally, a higher minimum wage would only accelerate trends toward automation and outsourcing what can be outsourced to other areas of the globe. To be clear, I think that this last one is mostly a good thing, but we have to be clear that these are the consequences.
Ultimately, a GMI is a much better idea. It can be much better targeted at low income individuals, it would clear up some of these issues with marginal tax rates for low income individuals, and it wouldn't leave people without jobs (or who lose jobs) in the same situation as they are now.
It's not entirely clear to me even on the "left" why there is so much focus on the fight for a higher minimum wage right now as opposed to a GMI except that it might be more politically expedient. There may be too many people right now who would hate the idea of giving people money even if they don't work, even if its more effective.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: It's not entirely clear to me even on the "left" why there is so much focus on the fight for a higher minimum wage right now
On it's face it's a simpler, easier to understand concept, and works well if you have a poor understanding of economics and poverty? I'm not claiming *not* to have a poor understanding of either, mind you.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because paying people per hour is more politically palatable than suggesting giving money to people who work fewer hours or maybe can't find/keep a job at all.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
