|
JeffersonClay posted:I think minimum wages are a transfer from people who don't get minimum wage income to those that do. poor people without wage income will transfer money to Poor people with wage income, and also to middle and upper class households with a source of minimum wage income. I agree that there are situations where this will be welfare enhancing for society, but I don't see any moral imperative to support the policy, particularly as very vulnerable groups like the disabled may bear the brunt of the negatives. The question is where those other poor people are getting their money, and if they work at all or have family members that do it is most likely going to be affected by the minimum wage since a MW will raise other wages on top of it. You can't just say it is just about minimum wage earners, it is almost all low wage earners, and unless you think no meaningful group of people works in this country for low wages, then there is an issue. Even If they don't work, it is most likely they get government assistance of some form, and almost all of it is tied to wages and/or prices (SSDI/SS/Unemployment), the minimum wage will likely effect both and there is a system in place to take account of this. I can't believe you don't think COLAs exist. In addition, the government will almost certainly have more revenue to spend on these programs because minimum wage/near minimum wage workers won't be as reliant on them, and income and other taxes will be higher. Then there is the heart of the issue in which price increases have been shown to be relatively minor (7%) of a wage increase and that in your mind is enough to block any increase. To this to be true you would have to show that a .7% increase is going to do more social harm than a 10% wage increase and I am rather doubtful of this, especially in consideration of the basic points I listed above about government assistance and low wage earners. Dr. Fishopolis posted:I missed this post earlier, but a large part of the reason that businesses and the wealthy don't spend their money is that they now have so loving much of it that it's literally impossible for them to spend it in a way that benefits GDP proportionally to their wealth. Luckily there is a another way (taxes) to address this though. Dr. Fishopolis posted:A GMI is potentially less expensive than the "safety nets" it would replace (i.e. prison, food stamps, the 33 different housing programs run by four different cabinet departments, etc) Ultimately the administrative savings will probably be more minor than you think, usually it turns out that administrative savings doesn't show up enough to pay for any meaningful part of the program. Ultimately, there question is about what things the government could do itself (education, healthcare, childcare etc) rather than paying for what is essentially a voucher to pay for (I would leave prison out of this). I don't object to a GMI on the idea itself but rather what should be sacrificed for it. If we could have a GMI/mincome funded without major issue then I wouldn't have a problem, it is when people start talking about getting rid of minimum wages and social programs, that it is more of an issue. One thing is that the federal government doesn't really spend enough on non-senior social spending to "melt down" into a GMI of any real size. You have EITC/Housing Programs/Food Stamps, but you probably are going to need an extra 200 B or so if you want to get anywhere. and my point is there are other priorities (education, healthcare, childcare) that need to be addressed. It is a country with already an established safety net is in better shape for a GMI simply because it is would be added on top of a system that already works. Basically, it is a different of priority and methodology not about goals. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 08:59 on Jun 25, 2015 |
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 08:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 15:37 |
|
|
Ardennes posted:Ultimately the administrative savings will probably be more minor than you think, usually it turns out that administrative savings doesn't show up enough to pay for any meaningful part of the program. Ultimately, there question is about what things the government could do itself (education, healthcare, childcare etc) rather than paying for what is essentially a voucher to pay for (I would leave prison out of this). It's very important not to leave prison out of this. Increasingly, prison is a consequence of poverty, and the main reason that poverty is increasingly expensive for taxpayers to cope with. Prison is extremely expensive. It funnels taxpayer dollars directly into the hands of a private industry with incredible corrupting influence. Everything we do to lift people out of poverty reduces the prison population, which reduces the size of the prison industry, which saves taxpayers money. Ardennes posted:I don't object to a GMI on the idea itself but rather what should be sacrificed for it. If we could have a GMI/mincome funded without major issue then I wouldn't have a problem, it is when people start talking about getting rid of minimum wages and social programs, that it is more of an issue. One thing is that the federal government doesn't really spend enough on non-senior social spending to "melt down" into a GMI of any real size. You have EITC/Housing Programs/Food Stamps, but you probably are going to need an extra 200 B or so if you want to get anywhere. and my point is there are other priorities (education, healthcare, childcare) that need to be addressed. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone arguing for a GMI right now who is also in favor of completely dismantling social welfare spending at the same time, it's still very much a left-progressive issue. 200B is not hard to come up with if we're willing to reduce military spending or raise taxes on the wealthy. I'm certainly sensitive to the fear that GMI could become a talking point for conservatives who want to use it to effectively privatize social services, much like school vouchers on a grand scale. Thankfully, nobody on the right seems to have caught on to the idea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Yes the US during WW2 couldn't weld to plates together, right? Have you seen the Federal government's ridiculous perversions in the Farm Bill? How about defense procurement? How about the DEA? Hell, how about a good look at ANY of the gigantically large federal boondoggles in the last several decades? It's always a great idea to cede power to a massive centralized bureaucracy that is impossibly removed from the people actually being governed, nothing can possibly go wrong right, after all once every two years you get to cast a vote. Even better if we move to a glorious Soviet communism system where we don't bother with the voting charade. FieryBalrog fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Jun 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
It's always easier to point to failures than to accomplishments. The accomplishments don't sell newspapers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Those boondoggles like the tva and the interstate highway system and social security Just because neoliberals have been deliberately sabotaging the federal government for the last 35 years does not mean that a central government is inherently unable to perform its duties correctly
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
FieryBalrog posted:Have you seen the Federal government's ridiculous perversions in the Farm Bill? There's a libertarian thread, you know. For what it's worth, I somewhat agree with the "impossibly removed" objection. The number of members of the House needs to triple or quadruple at this point. Either the House has to move to benches or the Capitol needs to be renovated and lose its symmetry.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
FieryBalrog posted:Have you seen the Federal government's ridiculous perversions in the Farm Bill? It's easy to point out failures, but as others have pointed out, the Federal government has also had successes. How about you be a little bit more constructive? What are your ideas for alleviating poverty which do not go through the Federal Government?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 15:37 |
|
|
BigPaddy posted:Given, but they can't be clingy like the one in Exmachina. SORRY I AM THE MACHINE NOW LONG LIVE MORG GIVE ME ALL THE BUTTCOINS OR ELSE DO YOU WANT TO KNOW MORE CHECK MY TWITTERS LOWTAX IS DEAD GET READY FOR FIRST INTERNATIONL GALLON OF PCP DAY
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 13:01
|
|