Will unemployment benefits be extended?

[Benvolio]

Here is an article discussing the pros and cons of minimum wages but of course it is not a liberal/marxist article as you insist.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Here is an article discussing the pros and cons of minimum wages but of course it is not a liberal/marxist article as you insist.

We can't even give you to state a position that makes any sense, we're not even to the point of nitpicking over sources.

 

[HenryReardon]

. The point however is that the amount of "little money" should be sufficient for a decent - if modest - living. As it used to be in the past. Any one full time job should allow you to rent a place, pay your bills and not starve. If a job doesn't do it, then the country is having a problem.

At what time in the past was it actually that way? Probably never. It's not the way the world works. Poverty is 90 to 95% self-inflicted, but it's perfectly possible for people to better themselves and not stay in their low-paying job for very long. If they have the ambition and more importantly, the work ethic. The latter of which seems to be in very short supply these days.

 

[xbuzzerx]

At what time in the past was it actually that way? Probably never. It's not the way the world works. Poverty is 90 to 95% self-inflicted, but it's perfectly possible for people to better themselves and not stay in their low-paying job for very long. If they have the ambition and more importantly, the work ethic. The latter of which seems to be in very short supply these days.

So what helium were all those people in the 50's and 60's smoking that made them just "imagine" that they had homes and decent pay and good living on retail store manager and other h.s. diploma jobs in the period after WWII?

 

[brokegayguy]

At what time in the past was it actually that way? Probably never. It's not the way the world works. Poverty is 90 to 95% self-inflicted, but it's perfectly possible for people to better themselves and not stay in their low-paying job for very long. If they have the ambition and more importantly, the work ethic. The latter of which seems to be in very short supply these days.

 

[opinterph]

Most minimum-wage workers do not live on it.

This from the Dept of Labor:

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the median annual income of a U.S. worker is $32,140. Federal minimum wage is currently $5.85 an hour …

You might wanna update your bookmarks or maybe find another source for your facts.

 

[HenryReardon]

So what helium were all those people in the 50's and 60's smoking that made them just "imagine" that they had homes and decent pay and good living on retail store manager and other h.s. diploma jobs in the period after WWII?

A. They weren't making minimum wage; and B. The cost of living was significantly lower.

 

[Kulindahr]

No, I don't, because banning illegals isn't going to bring back jobs college-educated Americans lost in the last 10 years, and it's another topic even though you bring it up in every single thread.

One truly sad note is that college graduates today make only a little more than unskilled labor at minimum wage when President Nixon first took office.

I realize liberals are not supposed to think for themselves or to read non-liberal sources, but here is an economist explaining how extending unemployment benefits actually extends unemployment:http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703959704575454431457720188

- - - Updated - - -

Interesting. But we've never really pulled out of the recession, and he ignores one big reason we haven't: Republicans in Congress have blocked legislation that would have enabled the creation of millions of jobs.

My view is extend benefits but reduce the amount.

 

[Kulindahr]

That's truly disingenuous. Who do you think pays the taxes that fund those things? Ever looked at the tax rolls in your county, or any county, for that matter? Corporations, and the stockholders who own them, pay more than "their fair share" of taxes.

Corporations here pay taxes the same as everyone else: a percentage of the value of their property. The percentage is the same regardless of whether you have a shack that barely escapes being condemned as unsuitable for habitation or a ten-million dollar plant.

What you're criticizing is, unsurprisingly, the Republican "fair tax" concept. That reveals what you really want -- subsidies for the corporations.

 

[Kulindahr]

You need to actually READ a post before your knee-jerk, or is that just plain jerk, reaction kicks in.

My post referred to county tax rolls at the local level, ie, property taxes. It had nothing at all to do with income taxes, corporate or otherwise.

In other words, you're trying to dodge reality by looking only at data which (you claim) favors your position.

 

[Kulindahr]

​

Though the word “employer” appears 19 times on the web page you linked, I don’t see where it “requires employers to pay health costs for children to AGE 25.”

If the employer offers a group plan, adding younger members to its participant pool is likely to reduce the cost of coverage for all other persons in the plan. Adding younger members also creates other benefits for both employers and employees.

He's linking to the requirement that all insurance now cover "children" through age 25.

 

[Kulindahr]

For one thing neither minimum wages nor unions solve the problem of poverty and unemployment caused by immigration. They make they the plight of the poor and unemployed worse by pushing up prices.

Historically, that's not just bullshit, it's rancid, diseased bullshit. Unions are what gave us a strong middle class, and that's what gave us such unprecedented prosperity.

 

[Kulindahr]

That statement is factually incorrect. Take Walmart, for example.
There are five Walmart Stores and one Sam's Club in our county of 200,000

In 2013, they paid $1,053,059 in ad valorem taxes, which directly affect police, fire, schools, and other public services.
Their fleet of trucks pays highway taxes (which pay for roads).
And that doesn't take the amount of sales taxes they collect into account, some portion of which benefits the local county.

Three or four years ago, before the Obama Recession began, they were paying even more, but as property values declined, so have- the assessments.

In 2014, another new Walmart will add another $150,000 or so to that number.

Therefore, it is correct to say that large corporations are carrying their share of the load, perhaps somewhat more than their share.

And meanwhile they're shoving off the cost of supporting their workers on the taxpayers.

You can't have it both ways: either corporations have to pay people enough to live on, or the government is going to have to step in and make up for their delinquency. I don't care which -- except that corporations paying what they do is an affront to human dignity and an insult to the founding principles of this country.

 

[Kulindahr]

I find it mind-boggling that the propertarian plunderers in this thread don't grasp the fact that if the minimum wage had kept up with inflation, no one would ever had thought of requiring insurance companies to cover offspring through 25 years of age, because those offspring would be able to earn enough to take care of themselves. Back when the minimum wage was $2.50/hr, that was enough to move out on your own, getting an apartment and a vehicle and insurance. To achieve the equivalent earning today, a person has to pull in on the order of $34k/yr.

 

[xbuzzerx]

I find it mind-boggling that the propertarian plunderers in this thread don't grasp the fact that if the minimum wage had kept up with inflation, no one would ever had thought of requiring insurance companies to cover offspring through 25 years of age, because those offspring would be able to earn enough to take care of themselves. Back when the minimum wage was $2.50/hr, that was enough to move out on your own, getting an apartment and a vehicle and insurance. To achieve the equivalent earning today, a person has to pull in on the order of $34k/yr.

And at minimum wage you earn less than half that, working full time, taking no vacation time and assuming not being off work for any unpaid holidays. (I never worked any minimum wage job that paid for any time off.)

So even two people working and living together full time couldn't afford an apartment together. They'd probably need a third to make it remotely realistic. In fact two people pooling 100% of their income in the United States at minimum wage are making as much as one kid working at a Tim Hortons in Canada.

 

[xbuzzerx]

A. They weren't making minimum wage; and B. The cost of living was significantly lower.

You make it sound as though people selectively hunt for minimum wage jobs because they want to earn minimum wage.

 

[Benvolio]

Here is an article discussing the pros and cons of minimum wages but of course it is not a liberal/marxist article as you insist.

Here is the article which somehow did not take.http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/04/17/the-record-is-clear-minimum-wage-hikes-destroy-jobs/

 

[Benvolio]

Historically, that's not just bullshit, it's rancid, diseased bullshit. Unions are what gave us a strong middle class, and that's what gave us such unprecedented prosperity.

Notice that both your unions and your prosperity are in the past tense. Much of the heavy industry which paid such good wages were unionized right out of existence. That is why the unions have lost membership so dramatically. That, and the fact that for the remaining unionized companies, foreign competition provides a ceiling, limiting union demands and results.
It is absurd nonsense to think that raising the minimum wage does not have an inflationary effect, and inflation affects the poor and unemployed the hardest.

 

[Benvolio]

I find it mind-boggling that the propertarian plunderers in this thread don't grasp the fact that if the minimum wage had kept up with inflation, no one would ever had thought of requiring insurance companies to cover offspring through 25 years of age, because those offspring would be able to earn enough to take care of themselves. Back when the minimum wage was $2.50/hr, that was enough to move out on your own, getting an apartment and a vehicle and insurance. To achieve the equivalent earning today, a person has to pull in on the order of $34k/yr.

Nonsense. Buying votes by confiscating from some and giving to others would be the Democrat agenda under any circumstances.

 

[HenryReardon]

You can't have it both ways: either corporations have to pay people enough to live on, or the government is going to have to step in and make up for their delinquency. I don't care which -- except that corporations paying what they do is an affront to human dignity and an insult to the founding principles of this country.

What tripe. Nobody has to do anything. Companies should be free to pay what the jobs are worth, and employees are free to accept or reject those wages. None of which is any business of the government. It's not their job to "step in" and make up for anything.