August 30, 2009
Worst Case: $170 per year, Health Care Reform
I heard Sen. David Vitter (La.) and other Republicans at a TownHall last Friday on C-Span threaten their Republican constituents with a $239 Billion Deficit (over 10 years) as the cost of Democrats’ Health Care Reform public option. So, I pulled out my calculator. 239 billion, divided by 10 years, divided by 140 million tax payers, comes out to $170 per tax payer, per year, in increased taxes, and voila!. Universal health care coverage and no deficit required.
But, even if this cost is accrued as a deficit, that 239 billion dollars will be paid for by an increase in federal revenues resulting from a more robust economy than the Congressional Budget Office assumes, based on current economic conditions. In the last century, all of the deep recessions have been followed by robust economic recoveries.
If David Vitter is intent on reducing the deficit, then why does he brag on his website about securing 2 million in federal dollars for the ARS Sugarcane Research Laboratory? Why does he brag about securing $1.14 million for human nutrition and obesity research at the Pennington Biomedical Research Center? Why does he brag about securing $150,000 for aquaculture research activities at the LSU Agriculture Center?
Sen. David Vitter railed about the size of federal government and applauded audience members complaining about government intrusiveness into the private sector. Yet, on the Senator's own web site (scroll down) he is promoting government growth in activities, and intrusiveness into the private sector as evidenced by his:
- Seafood Amendment to the Agriculture Bill requiring government to inspect foreign seafood imports
- Safety for Schoolchildren Act which calls for the federal government to investigate who local school boards hire for teachers and aides, etc.)
- Offering his assistance for Louisiana institutions, non-profit organizations, and municipalities in locating and completing applications for federal grant funding
Sen. Vitter was accompanied by Republican Senator John Barrasso (WY) who, pulling out thick stacks of paper representing the various health care reform Committee proposals, said one of his constituents in Wyoming yelled out, "burn it, and "start a bonfire". Barrasso then referred to these thick proposals as unread. If they are unread, then on what basis would anyone call for burning them? This is playing to ignorance.
These theatrics completely lack substance, logic, fact, or useful information. They are designed, as if by P.T. Barnum, to take advantage of that "sucker born every minute". The goal of Republicans has nothing to do with health care. They don't really care about the uninsured, the majority of whom don't vote, anyway. What they do care about is getting back into power after the humiliation of losing it all. To accomplish this, they must prevent Democrats from passing anything meaningful and helpful for the American voters.
They know they can't win against Democrats if voters accept their addressing the pressing issues facing our nation, like bankrupting health care costs and growing numbers of uninsured Americans. It's bad enough the economy is rebounding faster than anyone anticipated just 6 months ago and the stimulus Republicans said wouldn't work, is working, and will continue to work into the 2010 elections. Republicans need to halt these Democratic pluses.
I would bet dollars to donuts, that most Americans, if asked: Would they be willing to pay $170 more in taxes per year for 10 years if, that would provide health insurance coverage for everyone in America, would answer yes.
Which begs, the question. Why aren't Democrats making this argument. Are they too dumbstruck to pull out their calculator and do the math as I have just done? Between the hypocrisy of Republicans like David Vitter and the apparent paralysis of Democrats caused by the Right's entirely predictable campaign to sabotage health care reform, it is hard to see a future where America's problems actually get solved.
David, although I agree with your assessment, I would be very skeptical of the number of people willing to pay $170 in this instance. What these recent protests and such show to me is that Americans—at least the most vocal ones—don’t want to help anyone but themselves. The discussion of actually providing help to fellow Americans and presenting this small monetary requirement of some form of national civic service has not been stressed.
I read a great article a year or so ago in Foreign Affairs on, I believe, Denmark, where the taxes are nearly %50 of total income, yet they get free education through higher level degrees, perfectly clean streets, full health care coverage, and unending unemployment because having no job is seen as a failure of society rather than of the individual.
Perhaps, as people say, socialism won’t work in America simply because we are not a people who believe in helping each other and making our country better rather than just making sure the individual has a plasma TV, nice new sneakers, and a gas-guzzling car to get from one fast food restaurant to the next.
Personally, I have no problem donating $170 a year of my earnings—which are not nearly a lot at all—to ensure that basic human rights are provided for every one of my fellow Americans!
Posted by: Mike Falino at August 30, 2009 12:39 PMMike, universal health care insurance for those who cannot afford or acquire it from the private sector hardly equates to the Denmark analogy. Denmark doesn’t allow private health insurers. That is not what is proposed here.
And the whole socialism rhetoric is a red herring and more theatrics. America has been a mixed economy of socialist and capitalist makeup from its very beginning, and no one is proposing to change that historical fact with universal access to health care insurance for legal American residents.
These town halls and demonstrations are NOT about health care reform. They are about politics. Remarkably, it appears most Americans today don’t seem to realize this most obvious of realities.
David, I wasn’t equating the proposed system with Denmark’s, just that we are hardly in a mental state in this country to have board support for giving of ourselves to help others. All these supporters have no problem reaping benefits of socialistic programs, but don’t want to contribute. The key to everyone paying a little extra is that they are also paying for you in case you need it. Would a universal system like this replace cobra? If so then, coming from someone who’s family has had to deal with job loss to an absurd degree in my lifetime, I’d be worth it just for a possible safety net!
Posted by: Mike Falino at August 30, 2009 01:29 PMI mean protesters, not supporters. Sorry!
Posted by: Mike Falino at August 30, 2009 01:52 PMMike, yes, that hardened ideological hatred of taxes by so many on the Right, speaks to their lack of math skills as to just where the funding is to come from for the military, their SS checks, their Medicare, police and national guard protection and services, not to mention the Army Corps of Engineers, Interstate Hwy System, and so very much more which they depend upon without even being aware of their dependency.
Their ignorance would lead to learning by way of national decline and implosion, to learn just how good they had it and what that federal, state, and local government infrastructure afforded in the way of protections and underwriting of the middle class quality of life in America.
It is up to the rest of us to insure that their need for education be obtained through other means. Most Americans pay their taxes readily, and past research shows that most very wealthy Americans, as well as middle class, would not mind their taxes going up modestly if those dollars were put to non-wasteful efficient good use in bringing down the national debt or securing the nation’s economic future.
This researched fact is precisely why the Right has fashioned a big part of their resistance around the notion that health care reform will be wasted dollars, either on illegal immigrants (false proposition) or, government is wasteful and therefore the public option health insurance will be wasteful.
The private sector’s inflation in health care is rising faster than Medicare’s. The greatest waste in health care is occurring in the private sector. And that’s fine if rate payers want to pay for the higher waste, malpractice, profits, and administration costs of private health insurance. But, for those who can’t afford the private option or, have been rejected by it, a public option which contains inflation better, is the humanitarian and ethical thing to do.
David wrote: “This researched fact is precisely why the Right has fashioned a big part of their resistance around the notion that health care reform will be wasted dollars, either on illegal immigrants (false proposition) or, government is wasteful and therefore the public option health insurance will be wasteful.”
I recently heard President Obama make a statement like, it is my goal to insure that every person in this country has health coverage. Several months into this debacle, it’s not clear to me whether illegal immigrants are included. I agree, $170 is not a bad figure, IF people could have any faith in the credibility of the figure. And, what does it infer, relative to the immigration/amnesty issue? If you provide insurance for several million illegal people is that not taking them half-way to amnesty by default? It would be quite an administraive ordeal to write policies for several millions and then try to remove them from the country should amnesty fail, would it not? Put another way, does two wrongs make a right? I’m against the Corpocracy using illegal immigration fpr an economic policy.
Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve!
Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 30, 2009 06:11 PMMike
I lived in Scandinavia for four years. Things work there because those are small homogenous countries with long traditions of being together and working together. In Norway, as late as 1988 they used to sometimes move money from bank-to-bank aboard public transportation … and nobody stole it. These are especially honest and reasonable people. And there is a strong social discipline. People’s duties can be enforced by to what us is just a passing look or the admonishment of an old lady. In America we think others don’t have the “right to judge.” Social cohesion virtually requires it. It doesn’t mean that people are mean or intolerant, BTW. But everybody knows his duties and limits. I saw some of that social cohesion breaking down as they experienced a relatively small influx of immigrants, who just didn’t know or care about the unspoken rules.
Diversity is great because it encourages innovation and toleration. On the downside, it breaks up social cohesion and feelings of community. IMO – growing diversity is the strongest reason we cannot have many of the socialist programs some people want.
Americans joyfully contribute money to all sorts of social causes. Many have done studies that indicate that the total taxes plus social giving in America is roughly equal in America and Europe. While I doubt that $170 figure, I will say that I doubt that any of us on this blog has given less than that to charity this year. You are welcome to give more. Maybe contribute any tax refund to charity. People don’t like to pay taxes if they feel they are wasted.
Here are a couple of references re https://www.hudson.org/bookstore/itemdetail.cfm?item=3074
http://www.arthurbrooks.net/whoreallycares/statistics.html
HR 3200, is a steaming pile of crap the majority of people don’t want because of the details contained in the bill. all the hand wringing and finger pointing in the world won’t change that. it’s no wonder obama wanted it passed before the august recess before anyone had a good chance to read it. it’s dead let it go. hell even the astroturfed bus campaign proposed by the democrats won’t change that.
Posted by: dbs at August 30, 2009 06:37 PMdavid
you said
“This researched fact is precisely why the Right has fashioned a big part of their resistance around the notion that health care reform will be wasted dollars, either on illegal immigrants (false proposition)”
common david how long are you guys going to ignore the truth?
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed082809e.cfm
“Obama obviously wants to leave the impression that government won’t pay health care for illegals. It’s a false impression. Here are the two big fallacies with Obama’s carefully-chosen and scripted words:
There are other avenues for illegal aliens to receive health care at public expense.
All efforts to add enforcement language to HR3200 were defeated by mostly party-line votes. We can expect that the bureaucracy would look the other way under Obama’s control (just as it has with prior presidents).
Current law says illegal aliens qualify only for emergency medical care through Medicaid. Most of these are childbirths. These costs exceed $3 billion a year. But because few states require proof of legal presence for regular Medicaid, nobody knows the true number of illegals who receive it, or at what cost.
The House bill not only makes a major expansion of Medicaid eligibility but also restricts (in Section 1702) inquiries about immigration status. Efforts to fix this and to add enforcement provisions to HR 3200 were offered in the Ways & Means Committee by Rep. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) and in the Energy & Commerce Committee by Rep. Nathan Deal (R-Ga.), but voted down. No Democrats supported Heller. Blue Dog Representatives Mike Ross (D-Ark.), Jim Matheson (D-Utah), Charles Melancon (D-La.), John Barrow (D-Ga.), and Baron Hill (D-Ind.) voted for the Deal proposal.”
you said
“or, government is wasteful and therefore the public option health insurance will be wasteful.”
the gov’t is wasteful david, do you deny that? if you agree the gov’t is wasteful how could anyone with any common sense believe that somehow gov’t healthcare would be any less inefficient?
http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm2114.cfm
“Lewin, HSI, and TPC all found that spending by the federal government would, on net, have to increase significantly in order to implement the plan.”
“Lewin projected that the Obama proposal would increase federal spending by about $1.17 trillion over the 2010-19 period.[18]”
“HSI estimates the Obama plan would cost $452 billion per year, or more than $6 trillion over a 10-year period.[19] The dramatic difference between this estimate and others is largely a result of HSI’s assumption that under Obama’s mandate to cover children, the federal government would subsidize virtually the full cost of coverage. Also, HSI finds that the employer mandate would add sizeable costs to the federal government.”
mike
“What these recent protests and such show to me is that Americans—at least the most vocal ones—don’t want to help anyone but themselves.”
the old tired argument that anyone who would oppose the healthcare bill couldn’t possibly have a legitimate reason for doing so. they’re just selfish. excuse me while i puke.
Posted by: dbs at August 30, 2009 07:18 PMdbs your second link to Heritage is dated Oct 2008 and seems to be irrelevant to the version of the health reform bills being debated today.
Your first link implies that Obama is intentionally misleading people on illegal immigrant health care yet does not offer any rewording that would fix what they believe is a loop hole in the bill. Instead the author and you would rather kill the entire bill because of a supposed fault in one small section of the bill.
You go on to state a belief of the far right that “the gov’t is wasteful david, do you deny that? if you agree the gov’t is wasteful how could anyone with any common sense believe that somehow gov’t healthcare would be any less inefficient?”
Yet you are against this incompetent government competing with private insurance companies, claiming it would drive private insurance out of business despite the incompetence of the government. Do you realize how foolish that sounds?
It is this kind of hysterics that have fueled the opposition to health insurance reform and why many of use do not believe much of what is espoused by those against any real health insurance reform.
Go ahead dbs, I’ll hold the bag!
Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve!
Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 30, 2009 08:08 PMj2t2
“your second link to Heritage is dated Oct 2008 and seems to be irrelevant to the version of the health reform bills being debated today.”
how so?
“you would rather kill the entire bill because of a supposed fault in one small section of the bill.”
i’m only addressing the two issues david touched on. there are far more issues with HR 3200, to many for just a little tweeking IMO. should it be scrapped? IMO yes.
“you are against this incompetent government competing with private insurance companies, claiming it would drive private insurance out of business despite the incompetence of the government. Do you realize how foolish that sounds?”
actually it’s based on the wording in the bill that would not allow for someone to purchase private insurance if they change jobs, or keep thier existing insurance if anything about the policy changes. this bill isn’t about competition it’s about gov’t take over of healthcare. hardly competition IMO.
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf
http://knowledgecreatespower.blogspot.com/2009/08/hr-3200-kills-private-insurance.html
“It is this kind of hysterics that have fueled the opposition to health insurance reform and why many of use do not believe much of what is espoused by those against any real health insurance reform.”
no hysterics, just a lot of people, and organizations that have read the bill all 1000+ pages, and have exposed it for the pile of sh#t it is.
i’m not opposed to reform, but this bill isn’t the answer, and appearently i’m not the only one who thinks so. but hey spin it anyway you like. opposing this bill does not = opposing healthcare reform, just this democrat sponsored gov’t take over of healthcare.
David,
Since Doctors are the only citizens allowed to perform medical procedures or give medical advice today. Doesn’t that constitute a Societal Monopoly (my words)?
These are all the same words, same speeches given back when the government invented HMOs to give competition and reduce insurance rates. All that the HMOs did was drive other insurance options out and force people in those areas into HMOs. HMOs rewarded doctors for withholding care and the president mentioned withholding care in his speech. Same reasoning, same bad plan. It ended with people dying from long waits and from care being withheld.
The fact that even if a public option is passed it will not go into effect until 2013, safely past the next election, tells the truth about everyone in D.C. knowing that the people will hate it and be furious as soon as they see it is the bad old HMO scheme but even worse.
There is a lot through passing laws the government can do to help, but they need to stay out of running health insurance or health care. A few more years won’t bring a revelation on how to revive a dead horse back to life and it won’t bring one for how to make a national HMO work that angry and unhappy people are forced into.
“how so?”
The plan being analyzed in the link you provided was from candidate Obama not the current bill/bills being debated. One would think Vitter and his fellow Congress people would be, at the very least, spouting exaggerated costs of the current Pelosi/Reid bill.
It would seem David’s figures are more current than what you are putting forth as fact.
dbs, lies, and more lies.
Yes, illegals receive treatment in Emergency Rooms, but, NOT at gov’t. expense, at YOUR expense, and every person who pays their health care bills through insurance or out of pocket.
That DOES NOT CHANGE with the Health care reform bill which SPECIFICALLY forbids illegal aliens from obtaining gov’t. sponsored health care.
The Heritage Foundation will spin this in any way they can to defeat it, but, if you will notice, the Heritage Foundation DOES NOT LIE, they DO NOT say the health care reform bill will cover illegal aliens. Take them at their literal word, dbs, if you are going to use them as a source. Then your comments won’t contain lies, either.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2009 09:47 AMdbs asked: “if you agree the gov’t is wasteful how could anyone with any common sense believe that somehow gov’t healthcare would be any less inefficient?”
Medicare has waste and fraud in its system. HOWEVER, Medicare is more efficient than the private sector, delivering more treatment care per dollar than the private sector, and the inflation rate for health care costs through private insurers is higher than Medicare’s inflation rate, and substantially higher than the V.A.’s.
There is waste in our military complex too, and by your logic, that means we should do away with our military. Entirely ILLOGICAL, dbs, and FALSE. That’s not what it means, at all. Waste is no reason to deny 47 million Americans health care insurance making health affordable and available. Waste is a reason for voters to vote out their incumbents until the waste in government programs is dramatically reduced.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2009 09:52 AMPam, HMO’s were a nightmare of unintended consequences. However, the corruption of the concept took place in the private sector, not the government, in the same way, laws prohibit murder, (good intention), but murderers murder, nonetheless in the private sector. No reason to remove the ban on murder.
The concept of HMO, health maintenance organization, originally was to keep people healthy and thereby reduce the cost of health care, which skyrockets when remediable conditions become advanced or life threatening. That fundamental concept remains SOUND, both logically and practically, for those who observe its prescription.
Greed in the private sector motivated the corruption of the HMO concept (sick care is far more profitable than well care). This should have been entirely predictable and anticipated, and oversight and checks and balances put in place. They weren’t.
But, let’s be clear about one thing, there is no such greed incentive in not-for-profit structures. I truly believe incorporated not for profit hospitals, clinics, and health insurance is where the U.S. needs to go to drive down the health care inflation that threatens our economic future. Everyone working for these non-profits continues to earn competitive wages and salaries, but, there are far fewer middle men and no shareholders skimming profits from the health care dollar, while providing not a single iota of health care benefit to the the insured or patient.
David said :”Yes, illegals receive treatment in Emergency Rooms, but, NOT at gov’t. expense, at YOUR expense, and every person who pays their health care bills through insurance or out of pocket”. So, if we weren’t paying for medical care for the illegal population we might have the $170 to cover healthcare for all citizens. Maybe we should go back and get a couple of things right before we keep going forward making laws based laws the Corpocracy is failing to enfirce, What kind of government is that?
Some perspective: it all has to do with the breaking down the middle class, getting us ready to compete in the globalized economy. We must accept a lower wage scale, we must accept less health care and pay more, we must accept an economy based on illegal and cheap labor.
The idea of this regional trading zone is allow thee tri-partites to travel around, unimpeded, withing the tripartite. So, this leaves Mexico to stop the flow of people looking for jobs coming in from Latin Am. and beyond. We are taking care of 10% of Mexico’s population now. How will we do with 10% of Latin Am. How much grass needs to be mowed? Nah, I’m just fine with my heathcare situation. And, that’s my personal viewpoint. I’m advocating for a third party effort targeting reform, void of social issues.
Makes no sense to want to reform anything untile we crape the scab of Corpocracy from government.
Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve!
Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 31, 2009 10:40 AMRoy, some of what you say is true. But, my daughter’s minimum wage is substantially higher today than it would have been 3 years ago, by a couple bucks per hour. Which means some in our government are working to improve the conditions of working folks like my daughter, who could afford to buy her first car last week on the higher minimum wage.
There is this tendency by those critical of current conditions to condemn everything. An economy of thought process, I guess which saves energy and time. But, in reality, everything in America is NOT BROKE, and everything about our government is not ill-conceived and ruinously managed, though, a lot is.
Yes, we should halt illegal immigration. We should also consider the potential American exodus to Mexico as a result of their legalization of all drugs for personal usage. But, the border barriers are continuing to add mile after mile of impediment to illegal traffic across our S. border. Takes time and money, but, it is getting done.
All this said, our economy is still on track for implosion in the next two decades. And that is the reform that must be addressed as a priority. The health care reform principles outlined by Obama were to take us part of the way in the direction of preventing that implosion. Without addressing the deficits of Medicare and Medicaid, little else economically is going to have much impact on saving our future.
But, this is complicated, and therefore, the people confused and conflicted over these steps to save our economic future. And those on the Right and in Health Insurance Board rooms, are perfectly willing to sacrifice the nation for next year’s profits and constituent votes.
This is not a situation a THIRD PARTY is in position to deal with. So, the solution is needed now, not 10 or 20 years from now when a third party might potentially rise to the level of actually brokering policy between the Dems and Reps. A modicum of realism, is required here in this conflation of what the nation needs now, and what a third party might be able to provide a decade or two from now.
I hear you david. We’ve got to rush the stimulus through or we will crash, we’ve got to rush cap and trade through, don’t bother reading the bill, and we tried real hard to rush healthcare through. But, no rush on third party stuff. Besides the world, as we know it, would have come to an end by that time, so why bother.
Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 31, 2009 11:25 AMWhich means some in our government are working to improve the conditions of working folks like my daughter, who could afford to buy her first car last week on the higher minimum wage.
And unfortunately, the ones who lost their jobs due to the minimum wage increases, during a recession, are now looking for help just buying food and paying the rent.
So, the solution is needed now, not 10 or 20 years from now when a third party might potentially rise to the level of actually brokering policy between the Dems and Reps.
Yes and no. If a third party put together a good alternative that those on the right and left are resistant to, but that option caught traction in the public circle, it would most likely be adopted by one party or the other in order to gain those supporters. It would not need or lead to a third party gaining any more power or displacing the duopoly, but it would change the discussion taking place.
Except that those on the left are now protesting such ‘interferences’ by anyone who isn’t a Democrat, so it doesn’t look like they will be the ones being pragmatic about the situation…
Posted by: Rhinehold at August 31, 2009 11:28 AMWhy can’t somebody apply some basic to this whole issue? Forget lowering the deficit, if we don’t start producting a consistent, massive budget surplus we’re going to be in real trouble.
A friend sent me the link to an interesting website on healthcare a few days ago:
www.4pagehealthplan.com
It looked pretty good to me. Anybody else have comments?
Posted by: Common Sense at August 31, 2009 11:41 AMNo, Rhinehold. They are NOT looking for help. They are receiving HELP from their government which you would apparently DENY them.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2009 11:49 AMHow do you figure, David? If they were working minimum wage, how long before their benefits run out? And then there is a cap on welfare, isn’t there?
As for me wanting to DENY them, I’m not sure where you get that one from. Am I against FEDERAL welfare systems? Yes. Am I opposed to (but believe in the constitutionality of) STATE welfare systems? For the most part. Does that mean whey would get NO help? Nope, not even close.
Posted by: Rhinehold at August 31, 2009 11:55 AMdavid
“They are NOT looking for help. They are receiving HELP from their government which you would apparently DENY them.”
would this be the same gov’t that cost them thier jobs in the first place by raising the minimum wage? just curios. seems like a self defeating prophecy. oh well *shrug*
Posted by: dbs at August 31, 2009 12:05 PMRhinehold asked: “David? If they were working minimum wage, how long before their benefits run out?”
WHy don’t you look it up, Rhinehold. The Federal government has been extending unemployment benefits for quite some time now through this recession.
You seemed to be making an argument against my daughter receiving a living wage as a result of the federal law raising the minimum wage by arguing that some small business had to lay off employees during this recession that would not have had to lay off were it not for the raise in the minimum wage.
If a business is making its profits providing substandard non-living wages to those who cannot find better employment, I would argue they are exploiting their employees for profit, rather than contracting with their employees in a fair deal. Eventually those unemployed by raising the minimum wage will find employment and probably at a higher wage than before, and in the interim the American people are helping them stay afloat to their creditors or lessors with extended unemployment benefits. I regard this all as one of the things that makes America great and powerful as a leader in the civilized world, with moral integrity when speaking about humanitarian causes.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2009 12:10 PMCommon Sense, you are right that the goal should be to bring down the national debt. But, one law will not accomplish that. A sequence of steps must be undertaken to eventually get there. Health care reform which brings down the cost of health care in the decades going forward, is a major part of that solution.
By bringing down health costs for employers and consumers, economic activity is generated increasing government tax revenues which can reduce the need for borrowing. By bringing down health care costs across the board, the cost of government sponsored health care is also lowered, reducing the budget for health care outlays.
We are a nation addicted to gambling. We gamble with debt. We are now gambling the future of or nation on massive debt, knowing that our luck has to change, our numbers will come up and we will be big winners in the long run.
dbs asked: “would this be the same gov’t that cost them thier jobs in the first place by raising the minimum wage?”
dbs, clever question. But, in reality, McDonald’s just opened the new restaurant in May, which my daughter works at. An economy is always creating new jobs and abandoning previous ones. This is one of the dynamics of productivity embraced by business to get more production from every labor hour that is possible, which inevitably results in job losses.
Sure, the hike in minimum wages caused some to lose their jobs at the hands of employers whose business was so marginal in the first place, that an extra $80 per week in wages caused them to lay an employee off. But, millions of minimum wage workers are getting a leg up on college tuition costs, or into the consuming marketplace by their minimum wage increase, which will spur economic activity and create new jobs as a result, for those who were laid off, and at HIGHER wages this time. Raising the minimum wage to a living consuming wage level is a net plus to the economy - there is no logical way around that fact. Henry Ford understood this before nearly anyone else.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2009 12:47 PMThe Federal government has been extending unemployment benefits for quite some time now through this recession.
Interesting, because a friend of mine, who lost her job about 16 months ago, has been removed from the unemployment roles. I’ll let her know that she is still eligible then…
If a business is making its profits providing substandard non-living wages to those who cannot find better employment, I would argue they are exploiting their employees for profit, rather than contracting with their employees in a fair deal.
OR, they are providing work for people who are not looking to make a ‘living wage’ and providing them with other things (education, experience, etc) that is agreed upon before the person accepts the job at the rate agreed upon.
Apparently the individual is too stupid to be able to determine for themselves what those other reasons for working are?
Heck, the CEO of Whole Foods is making $1 a year, isn’t that a violation of his minimum wage protections? Shouldn’t the company be forced to pay him minimum wage?
But even worse, the notion that a FEDERAL minimum wage is in any way representative of everyone’s ‘living wage’ when the cost of living differences across the country are so large is so laughable that it makes me wonder how people can bring up that rational with a straight face…
I regard this all as one of the things that makes America great and powerful as a leader in the civilized world, with moral integrity when speaking about humanitarian causes.
Oh, because we routinely use the power of the police force against our own citizens for daring to offer a job to someone who is looking for something besides money for a job that they could probably get by with not having but provides a way for someone new to the workforce to learn about an industry and build a work history to help them advance?
Yeah, I can see how using force against people is a great humanitarian tool.
Posted by: Rhinehold at August 31, 2009 01:33 PM
Common Sense, IMO the broad picture is to stop and carry out reform of government before going forward. Over 150 years Corporate Personhood and Money is Free Speech law has allowed our government to operate under a cloud, a conflict of interest. Until we remove the tentacles of the Corpocracy from government it makes no sense to try and legislate on any matter, save naming a court house or handing out a medal. Only way to do do this, IMO, is through a 3rd party with a different political attitude as described in threads articles below this one.
David, I note that NAIP is soliciting for candidates now and plans to field a Presidential nominee for 2012. No reason they can’t do that as I am aware. The nominee may not be able to carry the party label on the ballot but could otherwise run for the office of President. Two years vs. two decades David.!?
The minimum wage is a great embarrassment to this country, IMO. Reform, through a 3rd party with a different attitude is needed to address the imbalance in pay we have today. It is patently wrong to value one person’s work at $10/hr while some sectors are knocking down millions/yr. I’ve got an article coming on reform issues that will adress pay imbalance along with other reform issues that can be carried out only by a 3rd party with a different political attitude. We should demand a wage scale based on a living wage. I Agree there is a need for part time workers to mow grass and similar work. Right now, in N. Ga. folks are mowing the neighbors grass for $50/hr, dollar a minute. So, even a part time worker would expect to ‘pay the bills’ at that rate. This $7/hr crap is akin to slavery IMO. A living wage would be based on the average cost of operating a home, feeding four plus a dog, and paying all the bills. Something we had in my family back in the 50’s with one wage earner. A new car every 4 years, wasn’t a bad life. Let’s stop being stupid and shut them down at the top and push up from the bottom. Third Party with a different political attitude can get the job done.
Posted by: ellis999@peoplepc.com at August 31, 2009 01:49 PMJust watched Glen Beck’s rant on marxist and socialist attempting an end run on freedom of the speech as it relates to media and the Internet. I do believe there is an attempt taking place to subvert certain aspects of freedom of speech law. Regardless of your politics we should all be on the look out for such actions carried out under the auspices of ‘diversity in media’. Apparently a ‘communications director’ under the FCC is playing a major role in this effort.
Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 31, 2009 06:04 PMRhinehold, 16 months is vastly longer than any of the States provide on their own. She has benefited enormously by those extensions. Don’t discount it. She, I am sure, would not. Care to provide some specifics as to State, occupation, and locale she resides in so verification of your statement may occur?
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2009 06:27 PMRoy said: “the broad picture is to stop and carry out reform of government before going forward.”
That statement conjures up an image of a committee formed to study the potential responses to a nuclear launch, already underway.
Reforms of government are by design, made difficult and very protracted in our system of government. Meanwhile, the challenges continue to mount in severity and costliness to resolve. Waiting for reforms first, is like holding off on brain surgery that can save the patient today until medical science advances to the point that the same surgery can be done without damage to surrounding areas of the brain.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2009 06:32 PMRhinehold, your arguments are anecdotal, and not representative of the work force in America, such as citing the exec already worth millions, voluntarily choosing 1$ per year salary.
Get real, man. We are talking 140 million workers, not a few hundred or even thousand who MIGHT match the circumstance you describe.
Again your logic rests on the whole nation having to subjugate its viability to the whims of a single individual’s preferences. Sorry, that is not how our nation was constituted, exalting the individual over the general welfare of the nation and people as a whole. It was constituted as a balancing act with individual protections from the powers of those in offices of government, but, never constituted as to sacrifice the union or welfare of the nation for one person’s, or a few’s, preferences.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2009 06:40 PMRhinehold said: “Oh, because we routinely use the power of the police force against our own citizens for daring to offer a job to someone who is looking for something besides money for a job”
Pure B.eligerant S.ophistry., Rhinehold. Americorp and the Peace Corps and a host of private charities subsidized by federal government who employ volunteers negates your entire argument.
Those wanting skills at substandard pay can also join the military. There is no lack of opportunity for such folks. Your entire argument ignores reality, as is often the case with Libertarian arguments.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2009 06:44 PMdavid
“McDonald’s just opened the new restaurant in May, which my daughter works at.”
give her an attagirl for me david.
as far as the rest of your analysis, i think you’re over reaching, JMO though.
Posted by: dbs at August 31, 2009 08:03 PMRhinehold good job on taking the thread away from health care reform and onto minimum wage issues.
Posted by: j2t2 at August 31, 2009 08:09 PMRight now, in N. Ga. folks are mowing the neighbors grass for $50/hr, dollar a minute.
ummm, that would be $60.00 a hour. If they are employees, they are not paid that rate. If they are entrepreneurs, you are making a number meaningless.
$50.00 a yard is likely the fee. Typically, two guys do one yard, and that depends on the size of the yard.
$50/ hour once every two weeks is not a livable salary. You are not including costs of expensive equipment(professional mowers cost several thousand dollars, not to mention weed eaters, blowers, trucks, trailers, etc.) If they do get lots of yards, it is very hard work. Try it some August afternoon. They get no work in winter.
I pay $25 every two weeks in Houston. It’s a small time guy and his relatives. He’s had a mower stolen from his house. He works a full time job and does this on weekends. I have a small yard. I looked around for him. Most charge $30 - 40. Even the illegals.
Posted by: gergle at August 31, 2009 08:47 PMI also disagree there is a large cost of living variation in the U S. Urban areas are more expensive, but often have more discount retailers in close proximity.
Only if you are talking about real estate does this have any validity. If you live or work in Manhatten your costs are significantly higher. You can, however, live in Jersey or Queens relatively cheaply and commute. Most people that work there do. That’s why the traffic sucks. You don’t have to live on Fifth Ave.
Posted by: gergle at August 31, 2009 08:53 PMDavid,
I know that I asked you a loaded question; however, if the Democrats, Republicans, or Independents really want to addres healthcare than we need to challange the AMA and Health Insurance Companies control over how Americans recieve Health Care and Medical Care.
For why I can’t get into how Americas’ Lawyers and Liability Insurance Companies work together in order to ensure every America is provided Legal Coverage, but I do know that over the last 150 years or so they have worked hard and sometines against their Inherent Best Interests to create a system of Government, Non-Profit, and Private Enterprises that meets the demands of most Americans and educates the Public as well.
So, other than greed and ignorance can you tell me one good reason why the AMA and Health Insurance Companies with the help of Americas’ Democratic and Republican Elected Officials have not created a Pro-Bono and an Income based service fee to help lower medical costs for millions of Americans?
Because why I am aware of no problem currently with the lack of Legal Coverage for Americans under their Societal Cpntract, not willing (maybe out of Common Sense)to take on the Health Insurance and Medical Industries Lawyers in a Political Debate that they are a Societal Monopoly I do believe that a Third Party could make some huge inrows into the Healthcare Debate by pointing out the following;
1) Educate every Citizen that they have free access to the National Library of Medicine which happens to be the Wolrds’ Largest Library of its kind. For way it took us years to learn our Civil and Constitutional Rights when it comes to Law Enforcement. I do believe that one can show how the teaching of Health and Medical has been twisted in order to fill a Societal Need. Since, in asking the simple question “Is a cut a Health or Medical problem” jumps the creek that was created by the Youth of the 60’s.
2) Since no medical student can meet the Highest Medical Standards of AMA until years after they become a Doctor, Shouldn’t America make the path which will allow non-profits organizations to offer them and the American People a forum in which the average citizen could have their Health Questions answered and links to groups that can help the citizen learn more about what they can do to stay healthy. And as an added bonus to Society, America than could have faith in their Doctors knowing that they do not always having all the answers to the medical questions asked by the Individual, Government, and Society.
3) Why expensive, out of respect for the seniors leadership on creating 911 Call Centers, Public Ambulance Services, and Community EMTs even I see the need to ensure that them that they will not recieve the same treatment as their grandparents did not that long ago. For why I am sure that most people have their own Rest Home nightmare story, I do see that Full Service Retirement Communities can be enhanced to provide non-intrusive 24/7 medical observation to citizens wishing to stay in their own home.
For why we face more “Old Folks” than Workers in the Economy as a Whole than in my personal opinion the Baby Boomers are going to have to realize that they use the Wisdom and their Grandchildrens Collective Knowledge to make Retiring in America mean more than just a way to grow old fracefully and die. Since why “We the People” may call them the Golden Years, as a Child of the 70’s I can’t help but wonder how Grandpa and Grandma in the 21st Century will define their Golden Years.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at August 31, 2009 08:55 PMgergle
“$50.00 a yard is likely the fee. Typically, two guys do one yard, and that depends on the size of the yard.
$50/ hour once every two weeks is not a livable salary. You are not including costs of expensive equipment(professional mowers cost several thousand dollars, not to mention weed eaters, blowers, trucks, trailers, etc.) If they do get lots of yards, it is very hard work. Try it some August afternoon. They get no work in winter.”
been there, done that. this all varies greatly on region, size of lots, and climate. you can work all year round in so. cal. but the competition is fierce, and mostly illegal. i know all to well. you can’t beat it if you like working outdoors though.
Rhinehold,
Does a person recieving unemployment or holding a minimum wage have any less need to have their health questions answered or their medical needs meet?
Now, I know that American Doctors need to make a living and desreves in most cases to be able to rub elbows with the Rich and Famous. However, to say that comes with no strings attached for the foreseeable future puts that Societal Standing into question.
For raise Health Insurance Premiums to a million dollars a year so every Employer is forced to take away their Employees Healthcare. And ask the Medical Industry how are they going to handle maintianing the hospitals, medical facilities, and research centers operational?
No, the mote politically correct argument in my opinion is what percentage of an American Income should be used to cover their Basic Health and Medical Risks. As well as needs to be set aside to cover the Individual risks based on their economic and enviromentail conditions. Brcause why it may be wrong to say that you can live next to a tozic dump, I do believe you should pay for the risk yourself and not pass that cost onto others.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at August 31, 2009 09:27 PMHenry said: “Educate every Citizen that they have free access to the National Library of Medicine which happens to be the Wolrds’ Largest Library of its kind.”
More than 70% of the population would be functionally illiterate in terms of trying to read references in that Library on Medicine. Medicine has its own very specialized language anchored in Latin and very complex interactive systems. It would be like giving every person in America free access to all the cosmological theories of the universe and the math that underwrites them. Only a small percentage would be able to get past the introductions in 99% of those references.
Given the high debt incurred by doctors and nurses to become professionals, the avenue to making health care professionals affordably accessible to the public is by greatly reducing that debt up front. We have the technology to make medical education, indeed, all education vastly cheaper via one to many closed circuit communications, and many to one feedback loops and channels. But, there are entrenched profitable and power interests in place that would oppose national implementation of such educational infrastructure, not the least of which would be many politicians.
I agree that much could be done, and that we are in the midst of entire mindset change about aging in America. But the competing forces have not changed. Those who insist a profit be made on any and every service or commodity the public wishes, and those who argue values should have a higher priority than the dollar profit motive.
Education, however, is the one area of human civilization that we can invest in to create more self-reliance in this incredibly specialized world of interdependence and predatory behaviors. Even with education however, there are many powerful interests who fight efforts to increase it.
Consensus is required in a democratically elected civilization to move the society toward improvement. Consensus on any issue is becoming more and more difficult to achieve as competing interests and levels of education and ignorance demand equal access to the forums. Put a scalpel in the hands of child, and great harm can occur.
Put the internet in the hands of masses of undereducated folks with a selfish political agenda, and great harm and costs will be incurred. Still, democracy, for all its flaws and weaknesses, remains the most just and civilized mode of governance yet available to the human species. Even if China’s specialized and morphed version of democracy proves to become the dominant democratic form in the world in 21st century by shear numbers and economic power. And make no mistake, China is democratizing, albeit, with a very different implementation than our own or a parliamentarian form commonly found in Europe and elsewhere.
I am always drawn back to the incredible wisdom of our representative form of democracy when pondering the wide diversity of educational levels and specializations of knowledge permeating our society at any given moment in time.
Too, I am fascinated by the osmotic fashion with which so much specialized knowledge is incompletely absorbed and modified and even tortured by the general public in America, and how much never touches the majorities of the public at all.
For example, nearly everyone in America knows Michael Jackson’s cause of death, though there is no mandate or requirement of any kind for the public to know these coroner results. Yet, the majority of Americans cannot adequately define the power granted them by universal suffrage nor even what universal suffrage means, though their own and the nation’s fate rests upon it.
There are very powerful forces at work here to insure the people are not educated or even interested in certain topics. And I can think of no more effective way to glaze a population’s eyes over on civics and voting than to teach American history and civics in the rote memorization manner and in an authoritarian structured classroom, as we do, in America.
Every civics class, I think, should be structured by a teacher on the first day or two, to set the limits, paramaters, and objectives of the class, and the rest of the semester that class should be run of, by, and for the students, as a prime example of the great potential and pitfalls of democracy and education in our society. And on the last day, let them watch video of a conventionally taught civics class, and let them decide who got the better education.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 1, 2009 09:16 AMdbs said: “as far as the rest of your analysis, i think you’re over reaching, JMO though.”
Which says nothing at all. Which part, how, and why? Your comment is akin to that of saying all religions are a waste of human time and effort. Without the specifics of how, and why, it is an idle opinion without substance. Which is entirely allowed and permissable. But a waste of electrons in cyberspace as a reply to my arguments. Votes, yea or nay, don’t reveal much at all, if anything into the nature of the reasons for the yea or nay vote.
To say my arguments overreach is no more than a nay vote without explanation. Which by example highlights the necessity in American politics for 100’s of millions of dollars to be spent on in depth polling research to understand why those yea and nay votes were apportioned as they were.
Such voting works, sorta, for electing leaders, but, as a debate mechanism, it leaves much to be desired.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 1, 2009 09:27 AMPoint is Gergle, that $60/hr for mowing grass is better than $7/hr for mowing grass.
I believe the wage scale for full time semi-skilled and up should start with a living wage, based on a family of 4. Is that too much to ask for the American dream? On the flip side, why, WHY would you want to accept a situation where we have the large corporations & institutions that have their tentacles dug deep into every crevice of government paying out millions yearly, even when some execs underperform? Some things need correcting and it will take a 3rd party to do that, IMO.
We do need a third party to represent those who are being very poorly represented.
We need a labor party or progressive party.
Posted by: jlw at September 1, 2009 02:37 PMjlw, IMO our needs go beyond one narrow sector. And, as I see it, no sector’s needs will be fulfilled so long as we have the Corpocracy’s butt hole stretched over the government of We The People. No law has been passed, no law will be passed that isn’t under a cloud, represented to serve the public interest but under a big conflict of interest. We need a way to remove the influence of money from politics/government and that will require a 3rd party with some rules to carry out proper reform and enforce accountability for elected and appointed officials, IMO.
Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve!
Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 1, 2009 02:54 PMAnybody willing to show up for the TEA Party in DC on the 12th and help me carry a 3rd party flag or two?
Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 1, 2009 04:55 PMroy
who was the guy that said democracy is doomed when the general electorate discover they can vote themselves generous gifts out of the public treasury? i can’t seem to remember. i know we talked about it awhile back. i want to say alexander stewart, but i don’t think thats right.
Posted by: dbs at September 1, 2009 07:18 PMdavid
“Which says nothing at all. Which part, how, and why?”
i guess what i’m saying is that i’m not buying that a small increase in the minimum wage will have much effect on bettering peoples lives in general.
you said
“millions of minimum wage workers are getting a leg up on college tuition costs, or into the consuming marketplace by their minimum wage increase, which will spur economic activity”
this is IMO an overreach on your part. at best it might be a wash.
does that clear it up? i look forward to your response. LOL!
Posted by: dbs at September 1, 2009 07:27 PMDbs,
Technically wrong about granting your generation generous gifts, if I remember My Civics’ right in the time during Generational Change the Adults and Parents can use the Federal Power of “We the People” to bestow certain gifts of Societal Knowledge and Wisdom. However, knowing full well that Self-Education holds the keys to those gifts I wonder how far the Children of the 21st Century will go in asking for “The Sky.”
David,
Why I to worry about the fact that most Americans still do not have a fith grade reading level in Common Knowledge and Common Sense. Faced with the idea of adding over $15,000.00/yr to expenses or choose a path forward that will lead to every American saving over $15,000.00/yr. I do not believe the Forces of Man and Nature can stop such an immovable object.
Limit? Absolutely!!! Because I don’t think Uncle Sam let only My Brothers and Sisters of the 70’s are really ready for a 100 year debate.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 1, 2009 07:49 PMdoug, can’t recall the quote either but, in looking for it I came across this interesting article on democracy. Maybe gloss it and your thoughts please?
http://www.energygrid.com/society/2002/05ap-democracy2.html
dbs, a raise from 5.65 to 7.25 per hour is NOT small, if you were making 5.65 an hour. Would you turn down a 28% pay raise, saying it would not make any difference to consumption capacity?
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 1, 2009 11:40 PMI also disagree there is a large cost of living variation in the U S. Urban areas are more expensive, but often have more discount retailers in close proximity.
A very very out of touch view…
Let me give an example.
Let’s say you live in Des Moines, Iowa, and make 50,000 per year. You can live like king there, new houses are going for less than that, etc.
To move to LA, I would have to increase my salary to 96,538 per year to have the same buying power.
This is the breakdown of those numbers. Consider 100 being the ‘national average’.
Overall, Des Moines ranks at 81. Los Angeles, 156.
If you consider just food, DM is 90, LA is 113.
Housing, DM is 44, LA is 235 (ok, if you want to take a 3 hour commute into town, you can probably lower that to around 200).
Utilities, DM = 131, LA = 115 (this is one place where LA actually wins!)
Transportation, DM = 97, LA = 108
Health, DM = 107, LA = 120
Miscellaneous, DM = 99, LA = 107
Now, a minimum living wage in Des Moines is DEFINATELY going to be lower than a minimum living wage in LA. Yet, we have a federal wage that overpays those in Des Moines and underpays those in LA. In fact, there are very few places where the ‘average’ is actually the number and we end up with an artificial manipulation of the local economy by Washington.
BTW, you can play with the numbers at http://www.bestplaces.net/col/?salary=50000&city1=51921000&city2=50644000
Posted by: Rhinehold at September 2, 2009 01:33 AMdavid
is that the federal minimum wage you’re talking about? was that increase implimented overnight, or over several years? big difference. also minimum wage jobs tend to be entry level jobs. jobs for young people such as your daughter who are just entering the work place, and are not suitable for supporting oneself. would you advocate paying a living wage to teenagers just working to make some spending money? i still disagree with your premise that this increase will make enough of a difference in the areas you speak of, to offset the loss of entry level jobs in general. how far do we take the living wage? why not $25 an hour? wouldn’t that give everyone a much better standard of living?
Posted by: dbs at September 2, 2009 09:07 AMroy
actually i’m not doug, i’m dbs.
while agree with the opening paragraph of that piece in general, i think it leaves out some other pay to play entities in our country big labor, trial lawyers, and so on. i do find the demonization of free market capitalizm a bit over the top. there is defintely a lot of room for improvement in that the gov’t should not be in bed with anyone, or anything they are regulating. i also like the part about bartering, and i think that is something the gov’t definitely fears, as it creates an underground economy they can’t control, or profit from.
Posted by: dbs at September 2, 2009 09:15 AMApologies to Doug and dbs for the name confusion. I can handle one thread, but two …
Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 2, 2009 04:29 PMdbs said: “is that the federal minimum wage you’re talking about? was that increase implimented overnight, or over several years? big difference.”
NO. The big difference is to my daughter and millions working for minimum wage. My daughter who, with current minimum wage can now afford to buy a car, which would have taken significantly longer for example, delaying entry to college, under the old minimum wage law of $5.65 per hour, is the big difference. And what if she turns out not able to handle getting through college as is the case for more than half of Freshman students, should she be held to non-living wages thereafter?
dbs said: “also minimum wage jobs tend to be entry level jobs.”
Catch up to the present, dbs. People with college degrees have been working for minimum wage for nearly 2 years now, having been laid off at the beginning of this recession. And students working their way through college, can be in minimum wage jobs for many, many years, fending off the higher long term costs of student borrowing, if they are smart.
Going to school part time and working at or near minimum wage currently still relegates that student to near poverty if they are having to pay rent, utilities, transportation as well as college costs. And that standard of living, going to college part time, can end up being for 8 or more years to graduation.
Student work study programs affecting millions of students are seeing less student debt as a result of the hikes in minimum wage, allowing them to earn more and pay more of current college expenses and borrowing less. And there are more applications to college in the last year than in previous years by a significant margin, due to the recession.
Then you make an incredible argument when you say: “jobs for young people such as your daughter who are just entering the work place, are not suitable for supporting oneself.”
And if my daughter were not innately intelligent enough or resourceful enough to go to college or acquire a better job, you are saying she should be deprived of a living wage? Aren’t you discriminating against 10’s of millions of Americans whose average or below average learning skills lock them into minimum wage positions as janitors, cleaning crews, yard work and other labor intensive work at or around the minimum wage?
You are arguing they should not be provided wages to support themselves, and what? The government should subsidize their poverty or, they should just fall ever further into debt and poverty until they die for lack of resources enjoyed by those earning living wages?
One heckofa value system your comment is promulgating there, dbs.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 2, 2009 08:50 PMRhinehold and DBS,
Most teenagers do not work forty hours a week. Since they do not work full time they usually do not get health benefits either so that leaves them some money to spend. But lets go the other way that you guys want to go. We get rid of minimum wage. Now corporations decide to start paying one dollar an hour. A few people decide to do this because they don’t want to be put in jail for doing illegal activities (over all this raises crime). Some people decide to get loans, but they can’t afford to pay off their student debt ( more bankruptcies). The people who do obey the law live in true poverty (more homeless and more crime). You can argue that people don’t have to work those jobs, but who decides who works them. Both parties have to. If people want to work it, but the company says no, then they can’t work. If the company wants people to work, and the people say no, they people can choose not to work until they starve to death. Who wins? Companies every time, unless of course you have a revolution and mass violence. Which is what some on the right want anyways right?
Why I agree with DBS there is a danger of making a min. wage too high. There is just of much danger as making a wage too low. You can argue that what I said wouldn’t happen, but the proof is in my favor. Look at 3rd world countries that do have capitalist governments with no safty net, compared to those that do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Personally I would like to see something like either Iceland or UK have.
United Kingdom £5.73 per hour (aged 22 and older), £4.77 per hour (aged 18-21) or £3.53 per hour (under 18 and finished compulsory education)
Iceland none; minimum wages are negotiated in various collectively bargained agreements and applied automatically to all employees in those occupations, regardless of union membership; while the agreements can be either industry- or sector-wide, and in some cases firm-specific, the minimum wage levels are occupation-specific.
If you don’t want a living wage for people that society in general considers needs it, then you might as well reinstate slavery.
Back to healthcare. The bill should probably pass although I admit I have not read it all. I did read most the considered to be “controversial” issues, and it’s like some people don’t understand law, or in other cases are scared of their own two feet.
And you like to keep bringing up illegal immigration. Well what do you purpose to do about it to stop it? Lay a mine field? Shrugs, little inhumane. Just shoot them when they cross? A bit better then the mines, but will cost more. Keep our current system? It barely works if at all. Probably the most humane thing to do is a three strikes and your dead policy. Why three, shrugs. On a somewhat more serious note, what should be done to detour illegal immigration? By the way, we should change our laws on just cause you are born here means you are a citizen. Which is really a state right not a federal one.
Posted by: kudos at September 2, 2009 09:07 PMdavid
jeeez! did i strike a nerve or what? you answered neither one of my questions.
“My daughter who, with current minimum wage can now afford to buy a car, which would have taken significantly longer for example,”
so it would have taken a bit longer to buy a car, where’s the emergency?
“delaying entry to college, under the old minimum wage law of $5.65 per hour, is the big difference. And what if she turns out not able to handle getting through college as is the case for more than half of Freshman students, should she be held to non-living wages thereafter?”
first off, if the increase was instituted over the period of several years the benefits would IMO be minimal at best when considering cost of living and inflation.
second, so she doesn’t make it thru the first year of college. where’s the emergency? she’s your daughter you help her. this theory that it is somehow everyone elses responsibility is nonsense. thats what the family structure is for.
third, there are trade schools and other options.
the rest of this is IMO just more of this it takes a community BS which i don’t subscribe to. we are all created different, with different ability, and different potential. the fact that some may not be able to reach certain standards, and may need help is once again what the family structure is for.
“And if my daughter were not innately intelligent enough or resourceful enough to go to college or acquire a better job, you are saying she should be deprived of a living wage?”
she should earn whatever her ability will allow her to earn. her wage should not be inflated to to unsustainable levels because it makes us feel good about ourselves. this is not good for the health of our economy. once again the family structure, we take care of our own.
your entire argument is based IMO on touchy feely, and does not make for good economic policy. sorry if that upsets you.
dbs, look at the flip side for a moment. His daughter is competing with CEO’s who are too big to fail, knocking down millions yearly. The way they are able to do that is by buying government tax laws, business deductions, sweetheart backroom deals with congress, ad infinitum. ENRON would still be sticking it to Calif. if some weasel hadn’t ratted them out. etc. If the fat cats are able to get rich by having the government put all the risk on the taxpayer why should the working folks be any less inclined to want a living wage? Should we tolerate this trickle down theory, like you know, somebody peeing on your pants leg?
Personally I would like to see something like either Iceland or UK have
I would rather that we do something better. We can calculate the cost of living in an area, why not make the minimum wage in an area be state-driven and be tied to the cost of living in that area? Doesn’t that make a LOT more sense than to have it be the same across the entire US even though it is almost never a realistic number compared to what a living wage is in the area?
Posted by: Rhinehold at September 3, 2009 02:39 AMroy
i don’t defend pay to play politics. that being said, how many people actually rise to the level of corporate ceo, cfo, or coo? if it could be achieved by anyone the compensation would not be nearly what it is, because the pool of candidates would be huge. supply and demand. demonizing people for thier achievement seems to me to be class envy, or just plain sour grapes.
would you agree if we are going to eliminate corporate contributions, we should also eliminate contributions from labor unions, and the trial lawyers? allow only personal contributions, and limit them so as not to give an advantage to the wealthy.
Posted by: dbs at September 3, 2009 09:06 AMkudos
what is a living wage and where does it stop? why not $25 an hour? after all most people cannot live on minimum wage, so why not make it something someone can live comfortably on?
Posted by: dbs at September 3, 2009 09:12 AMdbs, educating your comments is becoming very tedious.
Where is the emergency? We are in a recession for Pete’s sake. Isn’t that emergency enough for you? Does it not occur to you that the sooner my daughter and millions like her can afford to move out on their own and get their college or vocational education the sooner they can become consumers in our economy, and the more productive resources they will have to consume in that market?
$5.65 had long since been by-passed as a living wage.
Sheesh! Your comments lack any foresight or big picture at all. Your comments discuss economic details like minimum wage without any context of economics big picture for the nation.
Living wage is defined as sufficient to achieve independent living through the payment of one’s own transportation, housing, food and clothing, and other basic needs at the lower end of the income scale. Had you any inclination to research your topics before commenting you might be aware that the average age for children leaving their parent’s households has been rising dramatically since 2000. Which, in turn, means significantly less discretionary spending in the economy, especially for big ticket items, like housing, cars, and appliances. You know, some of those very same sectors hurting in our economy today, laying off workers, and going bankrupt or consolidating, which in turn is reducing business consumption.
So, yes, there is a limit on how high minimum wage should rise to. A very real and well defined limit based on the metrics of our economy. And no, $25 would be exceedingly too high for our economy and would bring about its own set of economic imbalances, like inflation, and at the very least supply shortages for a period of time.
That’s not to say there isn’t enough wealth in America to afford a $25 minimum wage, because there is. But, confiscating that wealth from the wealthy and distributing to minimum wage workers would be a true Socialist Act. But, America is not a Socialist economy or nation. Our is a mixed economy of capitalism which encourages wealth accrual and socialist policy that puts a floor under Americans whose position on the Bell curve of wealth distribution would leave them suffering and dying for want of basic necessities.
This system of ours has created the greatest per capita wealth of any large nation in the entire world during the 20th century. I would not want to mess with that kind of success record for our mixed economic model, but, maintain it going forward which is what the minimum wage increase and universal health care coverage will do.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 3, 2009 01:31 PMdavid
“dbs, educating your comments is becoming very tedious.”
“Sheesh! Your comments lack any foresight or big picture at all. Your comments discuss economic details like minimum wage without any context of economics big picture for the nation.”
sorry to make you work big fella. well gotta go the short bus is here to pick me up, and i can’t find my orange helmet. LOL!!! ;-)
Posted by: dbs at September 4, 2009 09:45 AMdbs, thanks. I love it when debate ends in total capitulation and failure to address even one counterargument made. Thanks. Enjoyed it.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 4, 2009 10:48 AMdavid
ok since you threw down the gauntlet.
you said
“Does it not occur to you that the sooner my daughter and millions like her can afford to move out on their own and get their college or vocational education the sooner they can become consumers in our economy, and the more productive resources they will have to consume in that market?”
what did occur to me is, why would you have her move out and then attempt to get a college education? common logic would dictate that you support her, and let her live at home while she gets a college, or vocational education. then when she finishes she gets a job, and moves out on her own. once again the family support system. by doing so she will enter the workforce with the ability to get a better paying job. the entire premise of your argument makes no sense, and runs contrary to any common logic.
correct me if i’m wrong david, and i’m sure you will. don’t these kids that fail to launch still eat while at home? do they not at least drive thier parents car thus creating a demand for gas? don’t they generally work a part time job, and buy burgers, CDs, shoes, etc. somehow raising the minimum wage is going to help solve our economic woes, and stimulate growth. seems the only thing that would change would be the demand for rental housing. who do you know of that can qualify for a home loan while earning minimum wage. seems this minimum wage argument of yours is nothing but a strawman.
dbs said: “what did occur to me is, why would you have her move out and then attempt to get a college education? common logic would dictate that you support her, and let her live at home while she gets a college, or vocational education.”
And here I thought conservatives admired folks who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and made something of themselves on their own resources. Now, you are arguing the liberal cause, that people deserve help from others, indeed, have a right to expect that from their parents and other authoritarian figures.
I want my daughter to earn her way. I treasured my education because I worked for every dollar and hour spent on it over many years. I want her to have that same pride and respect for her education. But, how I raise my daughter and the values I choose to instill in her is not the topic.
The economics of elevating people from positions requiring subsidization to levels of being self-earning discrectionary consumers in that economy, is the topic. Minimum wage increase to independent living status creates consumers who keep the economy healthy and vibrant. Living on one’s own, paying one’s way, is the American dream. I am surprised to hear you oppose that objective by keeping people poorer, with fewer opportunities, and thus dependent on government services to keep American from the shame of ignoring its own like some third world country without plumbing.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 5, 2009 10:58 AMdavid
“And here I thought conservatives admired folks who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and made something of themselves on their own resources. Now, you are arguing the liberal cause, that people deserve help from others, indeed, have a right to expect that from their parents and other authoritarian figures.”
since when are family values a liberal cause? how is bringing up the supporting of ones family the same as forcing others to support ones family? you still don’t seem to grasp the family structure concept.
“I want my daughter to earn her way. I treasured my education because I worked for every dollar and hour spent on it over many years. I want her to have that same pride and respect for her education. But, how I raise my daughter and the values I choose to instill in her is not the topic.”
you brought her into this conversation, and used her as an example, so responding to it is suddenly not the topic? sounds to me like she is a standup kid. why not give her a hand up? that still doesn’t address my point. it only tells me your philosophy in raising your daughter which is certainly your perogative.
“The economics of elevating people from positions requiring subsidization to levels of being self-earning discrectionary consumers in that economy, is the topic. Minimum wage increase to independent living status creates consumers who keep the economy healthy and vibrant. Living on one’s own, paying one’s way, is the American dream.”
so allowing a child to live at home while getting an education in order to send them into the world prepared, and able to earn a decent living, doesn’t help them achieve the americam dream? instead we should foist our parental duties on the general populace by forcing them to raise thier wages, forcing in many instances to cut cost to absorb the extra expense. even if this cost a few thier jobs. sounds more like cutting off your nose to spite your face. where’s the logic in that?
david
BTW, where can you live in this country, and afford to support yourself on $7.25 an hour? that alone destroys the premise of your entire arguement.
Posted by: dbs at September 6, 2009 05:44 PMHTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
<strike>strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation.
