Some win and many others LOSE. Apparently Progressives are unwilling to accept this simple cause and effect logic. If wages are raised to an arbitrary higher number:
- other alternatives become more financially attractive.
- be they automation, off shoring, alternative products / services
- therefore many low skill jobs will be lost
- and other higher knowledge / higher skill jobs may be gained
- where the higher costs can not be offset by the above
- the consumers will need to pay for the additional wages and benefits
I am not sure how their rationale works that they believe employers are going to stay stagnant and/or absorb the costs?
It is kind of like when Progressives encourage us to bring in millions of the Earth's uneducated and unskilled humans, while totally denying that it floods the lower end employment markets and drive wages down. Didn't they take Economics 101?
And always, do you really think American Consumers are going to "Buy American" if those costs go up even further?
People are so puzzling and irrational. I mean ROBOTs are already taking over, do we really want to hurry that along? :-O
93 comments:
The replacement of labor by more sophisticated means is happening regardless of the minimum wage. Truck drivers is the most popular occupation in something like 38 of the 50 states. Once we have self-driving trucks that are more fuel efficient and don't need to have sleeping berths or worry about needing to stop due to DOT regulations, what do we do with all those people? Walmart has all but eliminated their cashiers in their stores so where do those jobs go? Walmart is making far more as a result, which, yay Capitalism, but as we keep doing the replacing of people with automation, we need those former workers to have a way of taking care of themselves.
What did buggy and buggy whip makers do when the car arrived?
I assume they needed to learn new skills and pursue new employment...
Do you have any solutions? Or are you just a big whiner. :-)
To me it is obvious that $7.25 per hour is too low of a wage no matter where you live.
The question is how much to raise it- $10.00, $12.00 $15.00
I think that there is a trade off where some workers benefit and others lose their job.
To me raising it to about $12.00 per hour everywhere seems about right.
(some cities or states could choose to go go higher.)
At least you acknowledge there are pros and cons... :-)
The argument is that if we pay people less, business does better. Maybe it does.
--Hiram
The argument ought to be that wages are a matter of private contract between and employer and employee. If I am willing to work for $3 per hour that the employer offers, who are you to say I must be unemployed? If nobody is willing to take the $3, the employer will have to pay more. It was already happening in the Trump economy, with fewer illegal immigrants and more growing businesses.
And look at what the places with $15 have become-- every McDonalds filled with ordering kiosks, and the new robotic cooks on the way. There is a wage at which these investments would not be made. And the argument always denied is "why not $100/hour?"
How many times does Capitalism have to fail at protecting workers in order for you to notice that your ideas don't work?
Moose
The argument ought to be that wages are a matter of private contract between and employer and employee.
Interesting that some arguments ought to be made and other arguments ought not to be made.
The notion that the "right to contract" exists and needs to be protected is an old one in American constitutional law. Back in the day, it was used to protect child labor, low wages, and unsafe milk. It eventually went out of fashion among those who were increasingly reluctant to put their lives at risk through the consumption of unsafe hamburgers. Now, in this age when for many of us freedom includes the right to infect our neighbors with deadly disease, the right to contract is making a spirited comeback.
--Hiarm
Personally, I like UBI. Take corporations at a higher percentage and pay everyone a base amount so they can live and will reinvest that money back into the economy. Not enough to live lavishly, but enough to survive. You wanna have a cabin or a boat or a 4-wheeler, you still need a job.
Universal Basic Income seems like a viable answer if a country has a stable population.
Even though it means that the investors and workers are all paying for the ignorant and non-motivated to sit in their run down houses.
The problem is what do we do about the HUGE flow of ever more low knowledge / low skill people from other countries?
Remember that the Left wants both support for the poor and the freedom to bring ever more poor.
I think you spelled "helping people" wrong.
Giving people money for doing nothing ends poorly often...
If you doubt me... Try it with your kids... :-)
A better choice is to study the following pieces.
I am happy to "help people". I am not happy about turning them into "dependent hopeless drones". Or allowing them to stay on the public dole for many years.
Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
Source 4
Wow, you picked four right-wing pieces that all come to the same conclusion! Amazing!
And the poll therefore says that giving people money for doing nothing at all to earn it is a bad idea. Notice that in many businesses starting pay is ABOVE federal minwage, simply because the business must spend that to recruit workers, and because the workers produce sufficient returns to justify that wage. Arbitrarily jack up that wage beyond what the workers produce and you increase the number of job applicants, and reduce the need for workers. It's simple math. I cannot afford to purchase a robot for a job when I can pay $9-10/hour for a human that may do a better job with customers. But at $15/hour I can afford a robot to keep my prices where the customers will be happy about that. It's simple math. The notion that businesses will just pay more, without cutting jobs or profits or going out of business altogether, is typical liberal fantasyland stuff.
I really like what a few businesses in Seattle did. They tabulated the extra cost directly on the bill. Your receipt would say something like "two steak dinners, $24.95, mandatory government wage tax $22.15, total $47.10"
My company is more profitable than ever. We've done that while withholding wages, refusing to add staff, and keeping Big Brother on the shoulder of every employee. Moral is at an all time low, but people have a real fear about leaving and finding other employment.
So wen you say "businesses won't pay more without cutting profits" I damn sure hope they do. If those profits aren't being used to grow the business in meaningful ways and it's instead going into the pockets of ownership, that doesn't help the company, the staff, or the economy.
Sean,
When did VOX and Brookings become "right wing"?
Drewbie,
It is not the government's job to protect scared employees from themselves.
If the job sucks and is under paying... Go find another one that pays better and pays more.
If one can not be found, then existing company must be offering competitive compensation...
If a person wants a better job, a better company, better compensation, etc. They need to develop additional skills / knowledge, take on more responsibility or they can start their own company.
The authors of the Vox and Brookings pieces are not liberals.
Please provide a source that you think is more accurate.
I think it's more complex that "failure" or "success". There have been parts of the War on Poverty that have been successful, others less so. And you can't look at just the programs in a vacuum disconnected from trends in the larger economy. Here are a couple pieces that make these points:
Noah: The War on Poverty's surprising success
<a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/how-the-war-on-poverty-succeeded-in-four-charts>Cassidy: How the War on Poverty Succeeded (in 4 Charts)</a>
Cassidy: How the War on Poverty Succeeded (in 4 Charts)">New Yorker Cassidy: How the War on Poverty Succeeded (in 4 Charts)
Sean,
Yes we can eliminate poverty today by handing out checks... And counting them as household income...
I don't think that is "Winning the War on Poverty", at least not as stated by Johnson.
"Lesson 2: The Causes of Poverty
President Lyndon B. Johnson
War on Poverty Speech, 1964
We are citizens of the richest and most fortunate nation in the history of the
world…[W]e have never lost sight of our goal: an America in which every citizen
shares all the opportunities of his society, in which every man has a chance to
advance his welfare to the limit of his capacities. We have come a long way
toward this goal. We still have a long way to go.
The distance which remains is the measure of the great unfinished work of our
society. To finish that work I have called for a national war on poverty. Our
objective: total victory.
There are millions of Americans – one fifth of our people – who have not shared
in the abundance which has been granted to most of us, and on whom the
gates of opportunity have been closed.
What does this poverty mean to those who endure it? It means a daily struggle
to secure the necessities for ever a meager existence. It means that the
abundance, the comforts, the opportunities they see all around them are
beyond their grasp. Worst of all, it means hopelessness for the young. "
"The young man or woman who grows up without a decent education, in a
broken home, in a hostile and squalid environment, in ill health or in the face of
racial injustice--that young man or woman is often trapped in a life of poverty.
He does not have the skills demanded by a complex society. He does not know
how to acquire those skills. He faces a mounting sense of despair which drains
initiative and ambition and energy…
[W]e must also strike down all the barriers which keep many from using those
exits. The war on poverty is not a struggle simply to support people, to make
them dependent on the generosity of others. It is a struggle to give people a
chance. It is an effort to allow them to develop and use their capacities, as we
have been allowed to develop and use ours, so that they can share, as others
share, in the promise of this nation.
We do this, first of all, because it is right that we should… We do it also because
helping some will increase the prosperity of all. Our fight against poverty will be
an investment in the most valuable of our resources-the skills and strength of our
people…It strikes at the causes, not just the consequences of poverty.
From Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, Lyndon B. Johnson, 1965
(Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1966).
This part really explains where our society and the War on Poverty has failed.
"The young man or woman who grows up without a decent education, in a
broken home, in a hostile and squalid environment, in ill health or in the face of
racial injustice--that young man or woman is often trapped in a life of poverty.
He does not have the skills demanded by a complex society. He does not know
how to acquire those skills. He faces a mounting sense of despair which drains
initiative and ambition and energy…"
Today far more kids are growing up in broken homes... :-(
As for the silly phrases regarding companies not paying enough...
That is on us consumers and our immigration policy...
- American consumers will go to the low cost high quality provider of goods and services.
- Companies and citizens pay what is needed to hire and get good work done.
If you flood the market with low end workers, wages drop... No surprise there...
Remember all the local companies who paid better and took care of their employees... Yeah... Most are gone because American Consumers will not pay more unless forced.
Sean,
I have been asking some liberal minded fellows how they are going to force American Consumers to Buy American?
Let's say that Liberals succeed in raising the costs of every company in the USA by forcing them to pay more. This of course will put them at a disadvantage to foreign competitors. Remember that if companies do not have adequate margins, they soon fall behind in R&D, Operational Improvements, etc and things go downward quickly.
So how are you going to ensure Consumers do not reward the foreign companies that do not have to play by your rules?
Do you like Trump's tariff and trade war path? Something else?
The other question I have been asking is... As companies automate to reduce their staffing costs. Are you thinking we should force them to hire employees they no longer need?
Same goes for the Liberal plan of letting ever more low education and low skill refugees into the country. Fewer jobs, more low end workers, what is the plan here?
Do you like Drewbie's plan to tax all the investors and workers to give checks to everyone else with no real expectations of them?
"Let's say that Liberals succeed in raising the costs of every company in the USA by forcing them to pay more. This of course will put them at a disadvantage to foreign competitors."
Our problem with foreign competition isn't the minimum wage, it's our disastrous health care system.
It seems that you failed to answer my questions and instead tried to change the subject...
By the way, I do agree that it would be nice to fix the healthcare mess also.
"It seems that you failed to answer my questions and instead tried to change the subject..."
Nah, I just don't accept the premise of your questions. As I said above, if you're worried about foreign competition, the minimum wage isn't a significant factor there. I've answered your other questions dozens of times over the years because you turn everything back to the same old talking point over and over again.
You are absolutely correct that this will have little impact on most companies and most employees because apparently 98% of employees are already paid over $15 / hour for most jobs.
The employees it will impact are the young, the old, the low educated, the low skilled, the rural workers, small businesses, etc.
Therefore the impact will be large to this part of economy. Jobs will be lost, prices will rise and/or businesses will be closed.
I am not saying that the $15 / hr minimum wage is a bad thing... I am just saying that there will be some very negative consequences that folks like yourself want to avoid discussing.
And nobody, but nobody, ever answers the two most important questions: "Why not $100/hour?" and "why not $1/hour?"
If this passes... It will be interesting to see how long before people start arguing that it should $20 per hour?
And if the CBO is correct, will we force companies to hire unneeded employees? Or maybe the CBO is too biased also.
"The fight to increase the minimum wage continues to pose a challenge for Democrats as progressive voices dispute analysis that a $15 rate would lead to fewer jobs and a higher deficit.
The findings by the Congressional Budget Office, released on Monday, outlined possible scenarios under President Joe Biden's plan to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025. Biden's Raise the Wage Act of 2021 would benefit 27 million workers and lift 900,000 people out of poverty with a net increase in wages over a decade of $333 billion, the CBO said.
However, higher wages would raise prices for consumers and employers would move to automate more roles, leading to about 1.4 million fewer jobs by 2025.
This amounts to a 0.9 percent decrease in employment. There would also be a budget deficit increase of $54 billion over the next 10 years, because of higher government costs through unemployment insurance and health care spending."
That 98% number seems incorrect.
"The $15 Option. The first option would reduce total real income by about $9 billion in 2025, CBO estimates.
That net effect is due to the combination of factors
described above:
• Real earnings for workers while they remained employed would increase by $64 billion,
• Real earnings for workers while they were jobless would decrease by $20 billion,
• Real income for business owners would decrease by $14 billion, and
• Real income for consumers would decrease by $39 billion.
Those changes in real income would not be distributed evenly across families at different income levels (see Table 4 and Figure 5). For families under the poverty line, this option would increase real family income by an average of $600 per year, or 5.3 percent. (In 2025, the poverty threshold will be roughly $20,500 in 2018 dollars for a family of three and $26,300 for a family of four, CBO projects.) Families with income between one and three times the poverty threshold would also see increases in family income, though the percentage changes would be smaller.
The option would have virtually no effect on the real income of families with income between three and six times the poverty threshold. Finally, the option would reduce the real income of families with income more than six times the poverty threshold by an average
of about $700 per year, or about 0.3 percent. Low-wage workers are not necessarily members of low-income families. Many low-wage workers are in families with high incomes—for instance, some lowwage workers are teenagers in high-income families. In particular, about 40 percent of low-wage workers are in families with income three times the poverty level
or more (see Figure 6). According to CBO’s estimates, the increase in earnings for low-wage workers living infamilies with incomes more than three times the poverty threshold would be more than offset by income reductions, in part because losses in business income and in real income from price increases would be concentrated in those families.
The effects of the option on real family income would vary even among families with similar incomes. For example, low-income families with minimum-wage workers who remained employed would typically see their income rise. For other low-income families, however, real income could decline slightly (because of higher prices) or significantly (because of higher prices combined with a family member’s joblessness).
CBO projects that the $15 option would reduce the number of people in poverty by about 1.3 million—a net effect of families moving both into and out of poverty. That estimate uses a measure of family income called cash income, which the Census Bureau uses to determine the poverty rate. Cash income includes earnings and cash transfers from the government, such as Supplemental Security Income benefits. It excludes noncash transfers, such as benefits from Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; taxes; and tax credits, such as the earned income tax credit (EITC). (Because the EITC provides cash to many lower-income families, it is sometimes compared with the federal minimum wage in discussions about how to boost lower-income families’ resources; see Box 2.)
The people the $15 option would move out of poverty tend to come from specific groups (see Table 5). Almost 60 percent would be adults without a high school diploma, and about 45 percent would be 18 years old or younger. Women would also be more likely than men to
see their family income rise above the poverty threshold.
Here is the CBO Report Link again
Jerry, You want people to work and get of welfare. Why again are you against ensuring that livable wages are paid?
Should we call this analysis "static scoring" or flat-out liberal fantasy? There is always this assumption that the American People are too stupid to run their own lives, and that therefore whatever we do to them (for their own good), will not alter their behavior. They pass a tax loophole and then rail against people for using it. Stooopid.
" [mandating] that [outrageous] wages are paid?" Fixed it for you.
"I am just saying that there will be some very negative consequences that folks like yourself want to avoid discussing."
I guess I missed the threads where you've talked about all the good things that would come from raising the minimum wage?
And I want people to work and get off welfare, yes (and to be helped and incentivized to do so). So how does creating barriers to finding a job-- where skills do not justify the government-mandated wage-- advance that ideal?
Sean,
I started with this and linked to the Newsweek piece that discusses the pros and cons...
"Minimum Wage Consequences. Some win and many others LOSE. Apparently Progressives are unwilling to accept this simple cause and effect logic."
What else do you want from me? The topic is not "why the minimum wage at $15 is wonderful".
Please feel free to explain the benefits in more detail. But your denying the lost jobs and higher unemployment rates is a large part of the topic.
Jerry,
Having people paid $8 per hour does not get them out of poverty / off welfare either.
I guess I don't see employees making $30,000 / year as "outrageous"... But then again you are getting old, do you put $2 in the cards for the grandkids and tell them not to spend it all in one place? :-)
"But your denying the lost jobs and higher unemployment rates is a large part of the topic."
Where did I deny it?
Sean,
Then you do acknowledge that the CBO is correct?
That raising the Federal Minimum Wage to $15 / hour will help some escape poverty but will likely increase prices and expedite many people to lose their jobs?
And that it is likely that many small businesses may be forced to close their doors. Especially in rural communities where the current wages are significantly lower than $15/hr.
I think the CBO report is high on the number of job losses, personally, but yes I would expect some downward pressure on employment at the margins. The question boils down to whether or not one thinks the positive impacts of the change are, on the whole, more than the negative impacts.
It's not unlike the discussion around Romney's child allowance proposal. Is it better to give poor families money (which may cause a parent to give up a second job) or is better to make sure their nose is pushed even harder against the grindstone to make them more virtuous?
It is definitely complicated and has a lot of moving parts.
My biggest frustration is that Liberals seem to have no boundaries on who they want to save... Or any desire to address / discuss the unintended negative consequences.
They seemingly want to
- increase the number of refugees / asylees significantly
- increase the "guaranteed income" for the low educated / low skilled / low motivated
- continue not hold income recipients accountable for becoming responsible skilled hard working citizens
I just can not see an end point where this ends well for the USA. When we live in a highly competitive global economy, and our consumers reward the people who do more for less cost.
"increase the number of refugees / asylees significantly"
Yep, they're crazy -- proposing to return refugee admissions back up to 55% of the level they were at under Obama and lower than where they were for most of the GW Bush administration.
"increase the "guaranteed income" for the low educated / low skilled / low motivated"
Mitt Romney's proposal is more generous than Joe Biden's.
"continue not hold income recipients accountable for becoming responsible skilled hard working citizens"
This is a talking point untethered from reality, as we've discussed over and over and over again. Heck, in this thread we're talking about how much to pay *people who are working*.
We will see what Biden does regarding our uninvited guests from the South... Will he keep some of Trump's better ideas and keep deporting like Obama did? Or???
And Biden does not worry me as much as the Progressives... Only time will tell.
Unfortunately it looks like he is heading back to just let them in"...
I think Republicans will claim that Biden is opening the borders. And that a lot of people will see that and think the borders are open. It's part of the price we pay for undisciplined rhetoric.
--Hiram
I will need to do some more research on his plan for dealing with migrant caravans. If he has one...
"Having people paid $8 per hour does not get them out of poverty / off welfare either." It does if they have a government-paid supplement for working. It does if they are a teen living at home. It does if it leads to a job paying more. It does if they work two jobs, or this job plus something "on the side." It does if both parents work, especially if there are no kids, or if Grandma watches the kids.
Again, Any wealth distribution by government, whether some kind of UBI with no strings, or indirect like a minimum wage mandate, creates severe distortions in the free market for labor. This is going to be "good" for some and "bad" for others, but ultimately should be best for everybody because all the incentives will be in the right place.
You do have a lot of "ifs" up there...
If they work 2 jobs
If they have free child care
If 2 parents are working
If they get checks from the government
Now let's get back to the unfortunate real world where many kids live in broken homes, many times the father is AWOL or in jail, the grandparents are poor too so they are still working, the mother is barely capable, etc.
I don't have an answer... But denying the reality does not help solve the problem.
And yet any one of those "Ifs" would alter the reality so that this person did not NEED a no-strings-attached check from the taxpayers. All of those "ifs" would become less necessary as adaptations to alleviate poverty, or disincentives if you will, to make it on your own. The only thing that DOES work is some sort of short-term government assistance which allows you to make more money working than not. Preferably with some sort of non-monetary assistance to help solve your particular problem.
You seem to be concerned with all of those who "need a living wage." Where is your concern for those small employers who would be forced to PAY that wage, but who cannot afford to do so? In addition to considering the cost/benefit of any new law, there should be some consideration of whether or not government should have the authority (legal AND moral) to make such a law at all.
If everyone has to pay the higher wage, the business owners will just raise their prices. That is the one advantage of a Federal Min wage.
My priority as is often the case, is to ensure that kids are raised in relatively stable homes by loving capable parent(s). If raising the minimum wage helps with this, it is a very positive benefit.
Where as you seem to not care if the kids have supper or not.
Remember one of my favorite sayings. "Pro-Lifers only care about children until they pass the cervix... Then they are someone else's problem... " :-)
I love the way liberals only care about consequences--i.e. secondary effects-- that they like, and ignore the easily foreseeable but perhaps not easily quantifiable negatives. If you want to "ensure that kids are raised in relatively stable homes by loving capable parents" then do THAT (somehow). Raising the minimum wage is more likely to insure that a child ALREADY in a stable home, etc., cannot get a job to earn college money and gain work experience. And those parents that DO get the minimum wage bump and manage to keep their jobs will find that wage compression will drive up ALL prices and pretty much negate their increased wage. I'm certain that's one of the big reasons you will NEVER hear a proponent of $15 answer the question of "why not $100/hr?"
Story time:
Years ago (probably 2009 when Obama was pushing it) somebody called into a conservative talk show and said something like "I'm a lifelong conservative and I am all in favor of increasing the minimum wage." Whether the host asked or the caller simply continued I do not remember, but it was, "I am in the automation business, and every time we even talk about a minimum wage increase, my business goes through the roof."
As noted in the post, I agree that there are good and bad consequences to raising the minimum wage.
The DEMs fixate on the positives and the GOPers fixate on the negatives. Seems like usual.
OK, so here is the puzzler. Let us assume the rare circumstance that both parties are equally truthful and correct, that there are good and bad consequences to a specific action. Does there exist a proper policy action to be taken?
Conversely, were we willing AND ABLE to quantify the consequences on both sides-- a true cost/benefit analysis that never seems to get done any more-- and found a large difference, would that drive policy or would ANY considerable deficiency argue against the change?
I think the challenge is that it is impossible to get 330,000,000 people to agree on the evaluation criteria, scoring, weighting, etc. Therefore there never is clear winner...
That is why we in a democracy allow the majority to decide. For better or worse.
Sean and I are discussing the thorny issue of immigration, another complex topic with many consequences.
So why do we insist on majority rule, with no consideration for the effect on the minority? What if the total cost/benefit is very negative, once the minority is considered? Democracy like that is a terrible idea, because robbing Peter to pay Paul will always be popular with the majority of Pauls.
As always...
"democracy is the worst form of government except for every other form of government"
it belongs there with...
"companies who have union problems probably deserved them"
or maybe this one fits your views...
"let them eat cake"... :-)
I notice that whenever facts, logic, and tradition intrude on your blinkered worldview, you fall back on the notion of "majority rule" and that "we get the government we voted for" or even "deserve." It's a great cop-out way of denying the obvious, that government should be about the greatest good for the greatest number.
If you can reasonably argue that raising wages arbitrarily is in the long run good for everybody, try THAT.
I'm especially interested in how you are going to justify paying this new wave of illegal immigrants $15/hour.
You may have lost track... I know you are getting older. :-)
I am not a big fan of the $15 / hr national minimum wage.
As noted in my comments above...
But the reality is that the majority will decide. Unless you want to move to China where a minority decides what is best for the country.
Really? The majority decides? I point out we do not have a direct democracy, where everybody gets a vote on everything. And our quaint 200-year-old notion of "representative republic" is fraying at the edges. It is a FACT that a tiny minority of one President and 535 members of Congress are doing the deciding, and in far too many cases it is a bare majority of THOSE folks. They have added power to themselves, far beyond the Constitutional bounds of limited government, and they continue to wield in because half the population is either ill-informed, uninformed or misinformed. You cannot tell me, for example, that the decision to terminate the pipeline, made by ONE PERSON, was the result of a majority of informed citizens.
Besides all that, if you cannot argue a position on its merits, and continue to fall back on "the majority disagree with you" I will continue to say you do not have a legitimate position at all. "Go along with the crowd" is not persuasive in the least.
It is good that I am not trying to convince you then.
As for Keystone, Trump approved it over the concerns of tens of millions of citizens.
And Biden disapproved it over the concerns of 10s of millions of citizens.
Elections have consequences. Maybe Trump should have been a better President on not alienated so many independent voters... :-)
OK, so Trump ruled autocratically one way, and Biden the other. So the "majority," if it could even be determined objectively, would seem to have no bearing on the objectively-decided "best policy." Here we have another example, with starry-eyed liberals viewing $15/hr as unalloyed good, and conservative "skeptics" trying to introduce reality into the decision. You can come down on one side or the other, but please don't trot out that nonsense about the "majority" overruling your good sense, regardless.
It has long been my belief that public policy should be based on the greatest good for the greatest number, within the bounds of what government should be allowed to do. Where there is doubt about what is the best policy because of a multitude of pros and cons, the best policy is most likely to do nothing and let a free people sort it out for themselves.
As I said before...
You may have lost track... I know you are getting older. :-)
I am not a big fan of the $15 / hr national minimum wage.
As noted in my comments above...
But the reality is that the majority will decide. Unless you want to move to China where a minority decides what is best for the country.
What country are you living in? Is there majority support for ending the Keystone pipeline? For opening the borders? Granting citizenship to 12 million illegals? For ending deportations of murderers and rapists and drug kingpins? Is there majority support for rejoining the Paris Accords, or the Nuclear agreement with Iran? Of paying Iran billions in cash to "agree" in the first place?
And as for China, you are stating their autocratic governance is based on "what is best for the country." Can you even begin to say that the decisions of our government are similarly beneficent?
King Biden
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...
What Emperor Trump did has been undone...
And by what logic? Did one or the other have "majority support" even though the actions were autocratic? C'mon, man, both cannot have had majority support, since they are directly opposite. And by that same logic, one must have been more reasonable, sensible, appropriate, beneficial on the whole, etc. than the other. Why are you unwilling to make such value judgments when it might reflect positively on Mr. Trump, Republicans or conservatives, so that you fall back on "it must be the majority" rather than a cogent argument?
Well, let's remember that Trump did and said many things that the majority of Americans found insulting and unacceptable... Therefore they / we fired him by a sizable margin...
Biden ~81,283,000 to Trump ~74,223,000
Biden 51.3% to Trump 46.8%
So yes Biden does have a majority mandate. Unlike Trump who in 2016 only got 46.1% of the vote.
As I said before...
You may have lost track... I know you are getting older. :-)
I am not a big fan of the $15 / hr national minimum wage.
As noted in my comments above...
Correct you are. You have come down, apparently, on the right side of the $15/hour issue, and with good reason. We got off track when we started discussing your Trump-hate, "majority rule" and the welfare system.
So here is a new topic for you, since you clearly think $15/hour is NOT necessarily the solution to poverty in the US (BTW, welfare checks do NOT count in family income, so therefore no matter how big the government check is, "poverty" doesn't change one bit). Find the chart of illegitimate births in the US, starting with black kids before the Great Society-- 25%-- and black kids now at about 75%, and tell me that is not a major factor in poverty.
Lots of factors.
Lots of factors, but the fact of illegitimate kids in the black community is followed by a HUGE set of downstream problems from that. The proximate cause of all these problems is therefore the illegitimacy.
But again... What caused all that illegitimacy?
Obviously, the illegitimacy rate is closely correlated with the Great society and welfare spending, therefore that is the cause.
correlations does not assure causation
So, the fact that global temperatures are rising (slightly) is not necessarily caused by the increase in manmade CO2 emissions, even though they are very loosely correlated?
The causal effect was proven in the 1850's...
The causal effect was only for global WARMING not the undefinable "climate change" and the magnitude of TOTAL CO2 effect has not been established. The total contribution of manmade CO2 to the total is quite small, and the computer models seem incapable of producing accurate results (wildly wrong, more likely). There is no reliable temperature history suggesting anything unusual is happening, and that we are already far below the Paris targets.
I will give you this: Both compound themselves. Temperature rise increases CO2, and to a tiny degree increases temperature. Illegitimacy leads to more illegitimacy. The first we cannot control. The latter we should-- "break the back of poverty."
Please prove your causal relationship...
I did...
So, you accept your causal relationship as scientific fact, which it is, but without knowing its magnitude it is useless for the purpose of proposing solutions. I can only speculate about the cause of illegitimacy, but the magnitude of the effect is very well known. And the speculation makes imminent good sense. If government steps in and provides incentives to NOT form two-parent families-- rewarding illegitimacy-- what do you expect will be the response?
As usual, I ask what you would do to ensure the children did not go hungry or become homeless.
I have a proposal and you offer wishful thinking.
As usual, you seem to believe in all stick and no carrot. The simpler solution would seem to be obvious. If government is offering incentives for illegitimacy, stop that and start offering incentives for two-parent families. Same cost, better result. Where's the problem?
Same problem all your proposals have?
"what you would do to ensure the children did not go hungry or become homeless"
Please remember that I care about the kids, not the adults.
Why is a two-parent family More likely to make kids hungry or homeless? You aren't making any sense. I find it hard to understand how you're going to care for the kids without helping the parents unless, as you propose, you simply take all the poor kids away from their parents to have them raised by the Almighty State.
No where in my proposal does the state raise the kids.
Though it does help fund the care of children while holding parent(s) accountable for their choices.
Where as all you have is a dream with no details. As usual...
"start offering incentives for two-parent families"
"If a proven irresponsible Baby Maker who is on welfare (ie Angel Adams) gets pregnant. She should be forced to abort or give the Baby up for adoption." And if no one adopts them? Government sanctioned infanticide or kids becoming Wards of the State. Dream on and more sticks!
"The welfare payments and service should be set up to make recipients work, learn, mature and improve their self sufficiency." That's easy; simply make the incentives more attractive than the opposite. People CHOOSE their behavior intelligently, and rebel at being "made" to do anything, even if it's "good for them." Like eating their broccoli.
My "plan" lacks details because the government is incapable of managing the lives of millions of individuals (especially by one-size-fits-all mandates). The solution is for the government to offer some positive incentives for behavior that people might do for themselves if it were an attractive option. The rest takes care of itself.
Yep... Perfectly useless and vague... As usual
"is for the government to offer some positive incentives for behavior that people might do for themselves if it were an attractive option"
By the way, babies are easy to adopt out. It is when you have let them be neglected and / or abused for a few years that no one wants them.
OK, you want specifics? Replace all means-tested welfare with a simple, progressive, negative income tax with a strong marriage incentive. This would mean that any work done by either parent would increase family income, and the "negative tax" would decrease more slowly than the earned income increased-- a work incentive. "Life coach" social workers could be available to help =individual= poor folks improve their lives.
And tell me how /your/ details obviate this: "the government is incapable of managing the lives of millions of individuals (especially by one-size-fits-all mandates)."
Post a Comment