geo

for some minority folks it should be half or even less than what it is now, just to get certain people working, and learning the basic skills of getting up in the morning and getting to work on time

Whats your evidence that this group is a significant percentage of the populace?
And why just "some minority folks"?

rickyp wrote:geo

for some minority folks it should be half or even less than what it is now, just to get certain people working, and learning the basic skills of getting up in the morning and getting to work on time

Whats your evidence that this group is a significant percentage of the populace?
And why just "some minority folks"?

Sorry, missing word: "some minority of folks." I'm just trying to say, that most poor can be employed, but there is some minority of poor folks where even a minimum wage job is waaay out of reach.

20 years ago in grad school we did this research studio where we interviewed job placement people at a bunch of social service organizations in Detroit in an attempt to determine what were the largest impediments for getting their clients work. Our hypothesis was that the spatial mismatch between jobs and people would have been a serious problem. We learned from people doing this work that their biggest problem was work readiness, or short hand for showing up on time, in clean clothes, showered and ready to work. Second were legal problems for the folks who had records, third were family problems, mostly child care. The spatial mismatch was barely a blip.

It made an impression, and I still see it. Work readiness is a huge problem for some portion of the poor.

geojanes wrote:

rickyp wrote:geo

for some minority folks it should be half or even less than what it is now, just to get certain people working, and learning the basic skills of getting up in the morning and getting to work on time

Whats your evidence that this group is a significant percentage of the populace?
And why just "some minority folks"?

Sorry, missing word: "some minority of folks." I'm just trying to say, that most poor can be employed, but there is some minority of poor folks where even a minimum wage job is waaay out of reach.

20 years ago in grad school we did this research studio where we interviewed job placement people at a bunch of social service organizations in Detroit in an attempt to determine what were the largest impediments for getting their clients work. Our hypothesis was that the spatial mismatch between jobs and people would have been a serious problem. We learned from people doing this work that their biggest problem was work readiness, or short hand for showing up on time, in clean clothes, showered and ready to work. Second were legal problems for the folks who had records, third were family problems, mostly child care. The spatial mismatch was barely a blip.

It made an impression, and I still see it. Work readiness is a huge problem for some portion of the poor.

great post ... here's a non-profit founded by a friend of a friend ... they have found that the key is the basics ... showing up on time, acting appropriately, etc. You may want to check it out.

http://www.yearup.org/our-approach/

Ray Jay wrote:here's a non-profit founded by a friend of a friend ... they have found that the key is the basics ... showing up on time, acting appropriately, etc. You may want to check it out.

http://www.yearup.org/our-approach/

Cool. Thanks. I took a quick look and it looks great, will revisit later.

The International Monetary Fund on Monday cut its forecast for U.S. economic growth this year, warned of sluggish growth for years to come, and made a bunch of suggestions for getting America's economic house in order -- including raising the abysmally low federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.

Why? To improve the economy.

3. Poverty. The latest data showed almost 50 million Americans living in poverty (as measured by the Census Bureau’s supplemental poverty measure) and the official poverty rate has been stuck above 15 percent despite the ongoing recovery. Reducing poverty will require, first and foremost, a much more robust return to growth and job creation. However, other policies have a role to play. The recent expansion of Medicaid and the increase in health insurance coverage have been concrete steps whose effect on poverty and health outcomes should become more evident over time. An expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit—to apply to households without children, to older workers, and to low income youth—would be another effective tool to raise living standards for the very poor. Similarly, the government should make permanent the various extensions of the EITC and the improvements in the Child Tax Credit that are due to expire in 2017. Finally, given its current low level (compared both to U.S. history and international standards), the minimum wage should be increased. This would help raise incomes for millions of working poor and would have strong complementarities with the suggested improvements in the EITC, working in tandem to ensure a meaningful increase in after-tax earnings for the nation’s poorest households.

http://www.imf.org/external/np/ms/2014/061614.htm

Great, funny John Oliver bit on income inequality:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/07/last-week-tonight-john-oliver-rant-income-inequality

Wal-Mart is our nation’s largest employer with some 1.4 million employees in the United States and more than $25 billion in pre-tax profit. So why are Wal-Mart employees the largest group of Medicaid recipients in many states? Wal-Mart could, say, pay each of its 1 million lowest-paid workers an extra $10,000 per year, raise them all out of poverty and enable them to, of all things, afford to shop at Wal-Mart. Not only would this also save us all the expense of the food stamps, Medicaid and rent assistance that they currently require, but Wal-Mart would still earn more than $15 billion pre-tax per year. Wal-Mart won’t (and shouldn’t) volunteer to pay its workers more than their competitors. In order for us to have an economy that works for everyone, we should compel all retailers to pay living wages—not just ask politely.
We rich people have been falsely persuaded by our schooling and the affirmation of society, and have convinced ourselves, that we are the main job creators. It’s simply not true. There can never be enough super-rich Americans to power a great economy. I earn about 1,000 times the median American annually, but I don’t buy thousands of times more stuff. My family purchased three cars over the past few years, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and a few shirts a year, just like most American men. I bought two pairs of the fancy wool pants I am wearing as I write, what my partner Mike calls my “manager pants.” I guess I could have bought 1,000 pairs. But why would I? Instead, I sock my extra money away in savings, where it doesn’t do the country much good.
So forget all that rhetoric about how America is great because of people like you and me and Steve Jobs. You know the truth even if you won’t admit it: If any of us had been born in Somalia or the Congo, all we’d be is some guy standing barefoot next to a dirt road selling fruit. It’s not that Somalia and Congo don’t have good entrepreneurs. It’s just that the best ones are selling their wares off crates by the side of the road because that’s all their customers can afford.
So why not talk about a different kind of New Deal for the American people, one that could appeal to the right as well as left—to libertarians as well as liberals? First, I’d ask my Republican friends to get real about reducing the size of government. Yes, yes and yes, you guys are all correct: The federal government is too big in some ways. But no way can you cut government substantially, not the way things are now. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush each had eight years to do it, and they failed miserably.
Republicans and Democrats in Congress can’t shrink government with wishful thinking. The only way to slash government for real is to go back to basic economic principles: You have to reduce the demand for government. If people are getting $15 an hour or more, they don’t need food stamps. They don’t need rent assistance. They don’t need you and me to pay for their medical care. If the consumer middle class is back, buying and shopping, then it stands to reason you won’t need as large a welfare state. And at the same time, revenues from payroll and sales taxes would rise, reducing the deficit.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... 8fOTvldX4Y

The way that I look at Walmart is that it provides, lower costs on many items (including banking) that save poor people and others lots of money. It also provides lots of jobs.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/best-of- ... 1403554687

To the claim that Walmart is "a net drain on taxpayers," Tovar answers: "We are the largest taxpayer in America. ... As for the Wisconsin claim, Tovar notes that PolitiFact, the left-leaning "fact checking" outfit, rated it "mostly false." Tovar also disputes some of Egan's factual claims, not quoted above, about Walmart's pay levels.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... -public-a/

deleted

Why don't you do a spell, grammar, and format check, and when you are done I'll bother replying.

Ray Jay wrote:Why don't you do a spell, grammar, and format check, and when you are done I'll bother replying.

If it is any help, my home schooled 11 year old would be glad to assist, RickyP!

spell checked now ray....
ray

The way that I look at Walmart is that it provides, lower costs on many items (including banking) that save poor people and others lots of money. It also provides lots of jobs.

Ray do yoiu think its untrue that many WalMart employees have to apply for various kinds of social assistance? I realize you are quoting the Walmart vice-president and one polifact check of an MSNBC claim, which was ruled false because he applied one state to the whole country, but are you disagreeing with the claims entirely?
By the way, here's a polifact fact check that looks at a claim for Walmart for the whole country...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... medicaid-/

I didn't add to the quote I originally posted. Got interrupted. And for some reason my web browser isn't spell checking !
But the whole article I linked to makes the business case for a higner minimum wage. And that's the problem with Walmart "jobs". They rely on government programs to raise people to subsistence levels...
A minimum wage that was more livable would reduce the need for the government programs. You want to shrink government? Cut down on how corporations use them. Including how low wage jobs end up being subsidized.
Why? Because as the author says, a high minimum wage is very good for the economy. And a universally high minimum would reduce the size of government.

Most of you probably think that the $15 minimum wage in Seattle is an insane departure from rational policy that puts our economy at great risk. But in Seattle, our current minimum wage of $9.32 is already nearly 30 percent higher than the federal minimum wage. And has it ruined our economy yet? Well, trickle-downers, look at the data here: The two cities in the nation with the highest rate of job growth by small businesses are San Francisco and Seattle. Guess which cities have the highest minimum wage? San Francisco and Seattle. The fastest-growing big city in America? Seattle. Fifteen dollars isn’t a risky untried policy for us. It’s doubling down on the strategy that’s already allowing our city to kick your city’s ass
.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... z37kdzyOOf

They provide cheap stuff for those who are poor and they create a lot of jobs...I question whether Wal-mart enables those with low incomes to have better lives since they have extra cash due to paying less for necessities. True, the stuff is cheaper but if you buy a lot of cheap stuff you spend as much as before when you bought a bit more expensive stuff. I don't have stats on this but it is just my impression from talking to people (and occasionally going to Wal-marts, Sam's Club, etc) that the result is that people brag about their saving but come back with $300 of groceries. Getting more cheap stuff, well beyond any necessities, does not add much value to a person's life.
As far as creating jobs, to get their cheap stuff they import a lot from China--that doesn't add American jobs. Their bargaining power puts tremendous pressure on American distributors--that doesn't help create jobs or raise wages. And of course it is questionable to think that an enterprise that comes in and knocks a lot of small businesses out of business (which pay higher wages than Wal-mart) is going to create more jobs than are lost. The whole idea is that having all the products in one place is more efficient--that efficiency includes requiring less labor to sell the products. And, as Ricky points out, it is not fair for Wal-mart to indirectly get subsidies from the rest of us so that it can make huge profits and pay low wages.
At the end of the day, wealth is dependent on productivity. And jobs lost to Wal-mart probably are not that productive. Because of computers and internet, lawyers are vastly more productive than a generation or two ago and I would like to see more jobs created that use the enhanced productivity of the Information Age. I don't like so many jobs in these low productivity retail businesses. regardless if it is Wal-mart or not. But I still don't like Wal-mart.

rickyp wrote:spell checked now ray....
ray

The way that I look at Walmart is that it provides, lower costs on many items (including banking) that save poor people and others lots of money. It also provides lots of jobs.

Ray do yoiu think its untrue that many WalMart employees have to apply for various kinds of social assistance?

I agree with you that many Walmart employees have to apply for economic assistance.

I realize you are quoting the Walmart vice-president and one polifact check of an MSNBC claim, which was ruled false because he applied one state to the whole country, but are you disagreeing with the claims entirely?

"entirely" is a dangerous word. I disagree with many of the claims.

By the way, here's a polifact fact check that looks at a claim for Walmart for the whole country...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... medicaid-/

I didn't add to the quote I originally posted. Got interrupted. And for some reason my web browser isn't spell checking !
But the whole article I linked to makes the business case for a higner minimum wage. And that's the problem with Walmart "jobs". They rely on government programs to raise people to subsistence levels...

That's just not a correct way to look at it. If the Walmart jobs did not exist, they would have to rely more on government programs, not less. You are combining two transactions. Transaction 1 is that a willing buyer (Walmart) and a willing seller (employee) have agreed on a deal that is mutually beneficial. Transaction 2 is that the government has decided to provide certain benefits to certain people. You think you are smart because you can aggregate these transactions. I think that is a critical error in determining what is going on.

A minimum wage that was more livable would reduce the need for the government programs. You want to shrink government? Cut down on how corporations use them. Including how low wage jobs end up being subsidized.

Low wage jobs are not being subsidized. Low income families are being provided with subsidies. BTW, many low wage jobs are paid to people who live in middle class and upper class families. They may be earned by a young person, or a spouse who only wants a part time job because she (or sometime he) is mostly taking care of the family.

Why? Because as the author says, a high minimum wage is very good for the economy. And a universally high minimum would reduce the size of government.

Most of you probably think that the $15 minimum wage in Seattle is an insane departure from rational policy that puts our economy at great risk. But in Seattle, our current minimum wage of $9.32 is already nearly 30 percent higher than the federal minimum wage. And has it ruined our economy yet? Well, trickle-downers, look at the data here: The two cities in the nation with the highest rate of job growth by small businesses are San Francisco and Seattle. Guess which cities have the highest minimum wage? San Francisco and Seattle. The fastest-growing big city in America? Seattle. Fifteen dollars isn’t a risky untried policy for us. It’s doubling down on the strategy that’s already allowing our city to kick your city’s ass
.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... z37kdzyOOf

So you believe that if Bogue Chitto, Mississippi raised their minimum wage they would turn into Seattle?

freeman3 wrote:They provide cheap stuff for those who are poor and they create a lot of jobs...I question whether Wal-mart enables those with low incomes to have better lives since they have extra cash due to paying less for necessities. True, the stuff is cheaper but if you buy a lot of cheap stuff you spend as much as before when you bought a bit more expensive stuff. I don't have stats on this but it is just my impression from talking to people (and occasionally going to Wal-marts, Sam's Club, etc) that the result is that people brag about their saving but come back with $300 of groceries. Getting more cheap stuff, well beyond any necessities, does not add much value to a person's life.

For me, this is a fundamental ideological divide. You are so confident in your own abilities and viewpoint that you think you know better than the average poor person on how they should live their lives. You know who they should work for and where they should shop. You know how much they should buy and of what quality. You've talked to people so you must be right. And your confidence is so excessive that you are willing to regulate their activity so that they are forced to live their life by your view, not theirs. That's elitism, right?

As far as creating jobs, to get their cheap stuff they import a lot from China--that doesn't add American jobs. Their bargaining power puts tremendous pressure on American distributors--that doesn't help create jobs or raise wages. And of course it is questionable to think that an enterprise that comes in and knocks a lot of small businesses out of business (which pay higher wages than Wal-mart) is going to create more jobs than are lost.

I have not seen that. Do you have data supporting your view that on average small retail businesses pay more than Walmarts? Are you sure they have better benefits? Better opportunities?

But I still don't like Wal-mart.

Yes, I think that is what this is really about.