You seem to be a bit confused.

You have higher prices for medicine than we do. But it is not caused by high wages for the low paid.

You have relatively low prices for food. But it is caused by subsidies.

I never mentioned medicine prices before, so do not get why you bring them up. Food price, well, we were looking at whether increasing minimum wage would impact the price of food at cheap restaurants much, not the overall price.

What I am disappointed by is the idea that paying First World wages is too hard for the US economy, and the comparisons with Third World nations like Kenya and Costa Rica.

I cannot see that NZ has price controls on burgers. There is price regulation on things like utilities and regulation of industries, but nothing I can see that would affect McDs.

Danivon:

You have relatively low prices for food. But it is caused by subsidies.

Just on this small point, Europe does have more subsidies than the US, and more expensive food, so I don't think that subsidies are the main reason why our food prices are low. In fact, ethanol subsidies have increased the price of corn. There are also price supports for milk that make it more expensive than it should be in the U.S.

Danivon:

What I am disappointed by is the idea that paying First World wages is too hard for the US economy, and the comparisons with Third World nations like Kenya and Costa Rica.

On the larger point, I don't know much about the economies of Australia or New Zealand, but they do seem to function well. However, I do know something about European and UK companies having done work for both. There are individual issues where particular countries operate more efficiently on particular issues, but on the whole I much prefer the U.S. system, warts and all. In fact, when the U.S. widens the safety net, we often do it poorly. Our food stamp program and federal disability programs are good examples of that. If you do put in a safety net, you have to place constraints so that the system is not abused. Ironically, I believe that both Canada and the U.K. have more control on both their food stamp and disability programs than does the U.S.

We don't have a food stamp programme, other than for asylum seekers.

Oh, and corn in the US was already artificially cheap due to subsidies, making corn syrup your staple sugar. We have subsidies for farmer to lay fields, preserve woodland and hedgerows, and for refional priorities. Those may well result in higher prices - of course our food is far less homogenized than yours, so we have wide variation and different quality standards. Those, I suggest, affect tge retail cost of fooda fair bit.

To go back to the point, increasing the minimum wage does not need to massively increase the cost of food in a restaurant, or goods in the shops by more than the increased demand from higher wages.

Better entry-level wages are a good way to get people off benefits.

ray

On the larger point, I don't know much about the economies of Australia or New Zealand, but they do seem to function well. However, I do know something about European and UK companies having done work for both. There are individual issues where particular countries operate more efficiently on particular issues, but on the whole I much prefer the U.S. system, warts and all. In fact, when the U.S. widens the safety net, we often do it poorly. Our food stamp program and federal disability programs are good examples of that. If you do put in a safety net, you have to place constraints so that the system is not abused. Ironically, I believe that both Canada and the U.K. have more control on both their food stamp and disability programs than does the U.S

Canada does not have a "food stamps" program.
The notion that you have to place constraints on the system to avoid abuse is probably why the US safety net is so inefficient.
If you want efficiency in alleviating poverty, the first thing is to examine places where the poor are doing better tha the US. The examples of minimum wage in NZ and Ausralia provide an example. When you pay people doing the most menial work a living wage, they don't require public assistance.... and thats done without some complicated and demeaning system of "food stamps" that creates beaureacracies and inefficiencies ...


ray

Just on this small point, Europe does have more subsidies than the US, and more expensive food, so I don't think that subsidies are the main reason why our food prices are low. In fact, ethanol subsidies have increased the price of corn. There are also price supports for milk that make it more expensive than it should be in the U.S.

As the US has evolved from familiy farms to big agra controlling the majority of production ... economies of scale and production methods have had the largest contributor to lower costs. It might be time to look at all the subsidies and find out if they still contribute to the attainment of their original goals... Or just to profit margins at Conoco.

Cheap food, is one thing. But the production methods have also made much of the food production less healthy. The cost of eating fresh healthy food is much higher than eating a lot of the lowest priced foods... Including fast food.
With obesity rates in the US the highest in the world excepting for Samoa - maybe the notion that cheap food is a good idea needs to be re-examined. Part of this is the idea that fast food needs to exploit working poor in order to keep the cost of its unhealthy offerings low enough that everyone can over indulge.... Forced to pay a living wage things would change. But probably not too significantly if the experiences of retaurant workers in other nations is evidenced.

bbauska

I get frustrated with the US having to always have higher benefits and standard of living, but have lower prices on medical and food.

What standards do you aspire to?

rickyp wrote:What standards do you aspire to?

RickyP, I only hear you ask questions and never give an opinion. I want everyone to have the minimum standards of food. They do not need lobster, organic grown foods et al.

If I had my druthers, it would be food banks and no welfare cards.

What about you? Or are you just popping off?

bbauska

RickyP, I only hear you ask questions and never give an opinion.

too funny since I was asking for clarification after you wrote

I don't have any evidence. I was asking the question

I offer lots of opinions. But to have a conversation, one has to understand what the oterh sides are saying. When you say:
I

get frustrated with the US having to always have higher benefits and standard of living, but have lower prices on medical and food

I wonder what you mean. I interpreted it as a complaint about the US being compared to other nations in the delivery of things like quality of life, standard of living and etc.
Perhaps that was a wrong interpretation?

danivon wrote:We don't have a food stamp programme, other than for asylum seekers.

I guess it is a new thing for you?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/2 ... 64443.html

Ricky:

The notion that you have to place constraints on the system to avoid abuse is probably why the US safety net is so inefficient.

I think the problem is that we don't place enough constraints. For example, you can use food stamps to buy soda and potato chips.

Ricky:

and thats done without some complicated and demeaning system of "food stamps"

some people probably do find it demeaning. But for many people it is a way of life. It's not demeaning because their grandparents and parents and neighbors and friends use them too. I don't think it's that complicated.

Ricky:

It might be time to look at all the subsidies and find out if they still contribute to the attainment of their original goals...

Amen. Unfortunately once these subsidies are in place, they have a well funded and assertive following that keeps them or even lobbies to expand them.

Ray Jay wrote:

and thats done without some complicated and demeaning system of "food stamps"

some people probably do find it demeaning. But for many people it is a way of life. It's not demeaning because their grandparents and parents and neighbors and friends use them too. I don't think it's that complicated.

We haven't used actual food stamps in something like 15 years. Nowadays it is all done via the EBT card which is like using a bank issued debit card.

RJ, what that article is referring to is not the state benefit system, it's emergency assistance provided by local government. There's a big difference between the two. Local government doesn't have any responsibility for providing welfare in this country, but they do normally have a small budget available to social services that can be given out to families in crisis situations. Dan is right to say that we don't have a food stamps program.

Ray Jay wrote:

danivon wrote:We don't have a food stamp programme, other than for asylum seekers.

I guess it is a new thing for you?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/2 ... 64443.html

HuffPo getting the wrong end of the stick? Say it ain't so!

As Sass points out these are local schemes for emergencies, with varying criteria and not full coverage. That is not a food stamp (or EBT card) programme.

Last I knew, we did have restricted cards or vouchers for asylum seekers, because we decided they were not allowed to work, and giving them normal benefits was politically difficult.

Question - can one buy shoes, cleaning stuffs, bed linen or other staple household goods on your foord stamp/EBT card?

danivon wrote:Question - can one buy shoes, cleaning stuffs, bed linen or other staple household goods on your foord stamp/EBT card?

It depends. EBT (or Electronic Benefits Transfer) Card are for both Food and cash benefits. Food Stamps (now called Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program or SNAP) covers the food benefits while TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) is an example of a general cash payment benefit.

A person/family may qualify for one program but not another so what the EBT card can buy may be limited by what program the person is on.

ray

some people probably do find it demeaning. But for many people it is a way of life. It's not demeaning because their grandparents and parents and neighbors and friends use them too. I don't think it's that complicated.

The permanent underclass... Its the social mobility that has disappeared from the US, that exists to a much greater degree in social democratic nations with far more generous attitudes toward the poor and working poor. (Health care, education, employment insurance and minimum wages...)
We've discussed this before, the stringent controls over social welfare and the cost/benefit that comes from stringent controls..
I always juxtapose it with the lack of regulation and restrictions on Wall street and banks that have resulted in state bail outs ...
Why is it that the poor and working poor, who do so little damage with their level of fraud are required to follow strict regulations where the people who have proven time and again that they can really cause the State and taxpayers some pain are largely left unsupervised... ?

ray

For example, you can use food stamps to buy soda and potato chips

.
What. They aren't food?
The well off buy plenty of it thinking its food.....
Seriously with the end of some of the subsidies we agree should go, the cost of this junk would go up and be less attractive...

rickyp wrote:The permanent underclass... Its the social mobility that has disappeared from the US, that exists to a much greater degree in social democratic nations with far more generous attitudes toward the poor and working poor. (Health care, education, employment insurance and minimum wages...) .

Yeah, I'm pretty sure there are hundreds of thousands of applicants trying to flee the tyranny of the 1% in the US. Maybe they should sneak into Canada?