Ray Jay wrote:That is all by design from Clinton's overhaul in the late 90's. Johnson's war on poverty did not work. I think social security and Medicaid have some plusses, but AFDC had some huge problems. We created a culture of dependency where there was no incentive to work. Have a child and the state will pay you money. Repeat. The EITC is an attempt to both encourage work and subsidize the working poor. It's a reasonably good approach because there are limits to how high you can raise the minimum wage. For the non-working poor, we still have SSI. I believe this is designed for people who are just unable to work as opposed to people who have no desire to work.

I got that, but the design left a gap for the people who are unemployable. There are plenty of people who would work but no one in their right mind would ever hire them. If you design such a system you have to have an employer of last resort, but that piece of the puzzle was, and still is, missing.

Geo:

There are plenty of people who would work but no one in their right mind would ever hire them.

What does this mean?

At what point is it no longer the responsibility of the state to bend over backward to help people and insist that people figure out how to help themselves? The state is really just a coercive mechanism to force the rest of us to in addition to taking care of ourselves, to also take care of others.

Freeman:

If you set it at 50% of the national hourly wage currently the minimum wage would be $12.15.

Would you do it at a state level? Perhaps in some states that would equate to about the current minimum wage? (I know that question doesn't interest Danivon.)

RJ,

Sure, a federal law that mandates that a state's minimum wage law be at least 50% of the state's average hourly wage would be fine by me. That would help to to take care of regional differences in wages and cost of living.

So for Mississippi, the average wage being a bit over $17 per hour, the minimum wage would need to be a $8.50 per hour. For Massachusetts it would need to be $13.50 per hour. That seems like too big of a gap, especially to mandate something that might cost jobs to other states. I guess you would need to set a max as well as a minimum. So if you made it so that the state would not have to go over half the average wage in the U.S., Mass would have a minimum wage of $12.15.

ray

We created a culture of dependency where there was no incentive to work

This is a myth. (its a standard conservative nostrum, but I've never seen this claim well supported.
On the other hand...

Among households with children that include an adult who isn’t elderly or disabled, 87 percent of the households receiving SNAP in a given month include an individual who worked in the prior year or will work in the following year.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/0 ... in-a-year/

ray

The state is really just a coercive mechanism to force the rest of us to in addition to taking care of ourselves, to also take care of others

Not really. The state has all kinds of purposes but they can be traced back to the beginnings of states. We counted on states to provide security. Food security was top on the list as was defence from enemies. Rulers were expected to provide storage of grans and otehr fods as a hedge against poor crop years and a force of arms that could free the citizens from a need to constantly worry about self protection.
That basic hasn't really changed. People don't want to step over beggars starving to death in the streets. And that's why the security for the least well off is generally considered to be a worthwhile role for the state... It can efficiently deal with the problem where charity was always inadequate to the problem.

But you're railing against state involvement in setting a minimum standard for wages, which would largely eliminate the need for direct state involvement in the welfare of its poorest citizens. Its called a living wage for a reason.

rickyp wrote:ray

We created a culture of dependency where there was no incentive to work

This is a myth. (its a standard conservative nostrum, but I've never seen this claim well supported.
On the other hand...

I think we should acknowledge that some welfare programs in the past were not well designed and in some cases did encourage dependency. As somebody who worked in low income neighborhoods, I've seen it, where people weren't encouraged to work, weren't encouraged to upgrade their skills, were just getting a check, and, over time, their motivation started to diminish. And I think even if you're progressive you've got to acknowledge that some of these things have not been well designed.

Yes, that famous conservative Barack Obama said it: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... dency.html

rickyp wrote:ray

We created a culture of dependency where there was no incentive to work

This is a myth. (its a standard conservative nostrum, but I've never seen this claim well supported.
On the other hand...

Among households with children that include an adult who isn’t elderly or disabled, 87 percent of the households receiving SNAP in a given month include an individual who worked in the prior year or will work in the following year.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/0 ... in-a-year/

Furthermore, by not using my full quote you've absolutely distorted what I've said. I was talking about the Johnson - Clinton years and you are using recent stats. Not too smart ... not too honest.

Ricky:

But you're railing against state involvement in setting a minimum standard for wages, which would largely eliminate the need for direct state involvement in the welfare of its poorest citizens. Its called a living wage for a reason.

No I haven't ... I'm saying that there are limits to unpaid welfare. You are distorting my comments, again. Also, you are factually incorrect. The state is involved in setting minimum standards for wages and yet there are still poor citizens. A higher minimum wage would not "eliminate the need for direct state involvement in the welfare of [the] poorest citizens.

ray

The state is involved in setting minimum standards for wages and yet there are still poor citizens. A higher minimum wage would not "eliminate the need for direct state involvement in the welfare of [the] poorest citizens.

When the state has decided that the minimum wage is so low that working a full week won't pay for the basic necessities (or if the employer ensures he uses primarily part time employees in order to dodge benenfit payments) - other programs are used to ensure there isn't hunger or homelessness.
And taxpayers foot the bill.

Other large retail chains have been the focus of similar reports in recent months. In October, two studies released to coincide showed that American fast food industry outsourced a combined $7 billion in annual labor costs to taxpayers. McDonald's MCD -0.11% alone accounted for $1.2 billion of that outlay

.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconno ... ssistance/

Wouldn't it be simpler and more efficient to ensure the minimum wage was livable?

Ray Jay wrote:Geo:

There are plenty of people who would work but no one in their right mind would ever hire them.

What does this mean?

Well, it means that we now have a system that requires people to work, except there is some substantial minority of people who can't because they are unemployable due to lack of skills (and I mean that very broadly). If you develop a system that requires work, but produce a citizenry where some minority are incapable of it, then you should have an employer of last resort, a place where the unemployable can work.

Or we can just say they should be homeless, or wards of their family, or be incarcerated. Oh, that's what we do. How's it working out?

geojanes wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:Geo:

There are plenty of people who would work but no one in their right mind would ever hire them.

What does this mean?

Well, it means that we now have a system that requires people to work, except there is some substantial minority of people who can't because they are unemployable due to lack of skills (and I mean that very broadly). If you develop a system that requires work, but produce a citizenry where some minority are incapable of it, then you should have an employer of last resort, a place where the unemployable can work.

Or we can just say they should be homeless, or wards of their family, or be incarcerated. Oh, that's what we do. How's it working out?

There are lots of things we can do differently. I don't think you or anyone else has outlined policies that will solve poverty or the fact there are a lot of people without skills. These problems have been around for 100's of years ... we launched the war on poverty 50 years ago ... clearly it's complicated.

If people are in such a state that no one in their "right mind would ever hire them" I wouldn't recommend making the federal government the hirer of last resort. There's a lot of opportunity for humor here.

ray

There are lots of things we can do differently. I don't think you or anyone else has outlined policies that will solve poverty or the fact there are a lot of people without skills. These problems have been around for 100's of years ... we launched the war on poverty 50 years ago ... clearly it's complicated.

There are nations that have managed to incorporate things like minimum wages, and a strong social safety net and yet still maintain high participation in the work force and high productivity rates. And strong economies.
If other nations have managed to do that, its not that complicated.
The point being that the poor don't have to be miserably poor in a rich nation...
And employers don't need the maintenance of an exploited working class in order to be profitable enterprises.

rickyp wrote:ray

There are lots of things we can do differently. I don't think you or anyone else has outlined policies that will solve poverty or the fact there are a lot of people without skills. These problems have been around for 100's of years ... we launched the war on poverty 50 years ago ... clearly it's complicated.

There are nations that have managed to incorporate things like minimum wages, and a strong social safety net and yet still maintain high participation in the work force and high productivity rates. And strong economies.
If other nations have managed to do that, its not that complicated.
The point being that the poor don't have to be miserably poor in a rich nation...
And employers don't need the maintenance of an exploited working class in order to be profitable enterprises.

I don't agree with your phrase "miserably poor". The federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour ... that's about $14,000 per year ... I know it's not great, but is it really miserable? 22 states have minimums that are above that ... I'm guessing more than 1/2 of the country based on state demographics as the larger states tend to be more liberal ... someone at that $14,000 income level would receive food stamps, maybe public housing, free medical care, other benefits ... if they have a family there would be other payments ... many people start off at minimum wage jobs and move up.

How's this for a campaign slogan: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for yourself."