Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
COMPUTER CRASHER

Jks Higher Min.wage Vs. Gwbs Eucation Plan

Recommended Posts

Well, I can give you an idea of what disablity SS is. If I get it, I will receive the grand total of $635 a month. That is to cover all living expenses. :help:

That's amazing. My nephew, who has never held a job for one day in his life is on full permanent disability and he gets a lot more than that, plus a ridiculously cheap apartment that is VERY nice, nicer than mine, and all of his medical expenses (substantial) are taken care of, plus he even has a social worker that picks him up to take him grocery shopping. He has broadband, cable TV, a cell phone, and lives a very decent life.

 

There is no private insurance involved, he gets nothing but his benefits from the government.

 

 

I guess he just knew what forms to fill out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is getting more then just SS for assistance if he has all that. I have two relatives total disabilty, and if they were not living with their mother they would be living in a state institution or homeless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, just SS. He went on full disability at the age of eighteen, never worked, never had any insurance.

 

He was getting partial benefits when he was under eighteen. The apartment took a few months to get, he was on a waiting list and stayed with his grandmother in the mean time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's amazing. My nephew, who has never held a job for one day in his life is on full permanent disability and he gets a lot more than that, plus a ridiculously cheap apartment that is VERY nice, nicer than mine, and all of his medical expenses (substantial) are taken care of, plus he even has a social worker that picks him up to take him grocery shopping. He has broadband, cable TV, a cell phone, and lives a very decent life.

 

There is no private insurance involved, he gets nothing but his benefits from the government.

 

 

I guess he just knew what forms to fill out.

I find it impossible to believe he gets all that on just SS. As I stated I will get $635 a month for living expenses and minimal medical, which means the nuerologist and back specialist come out of what they give me for living expenses. I can file for HUD housing for a place to live, but those housings are in the slumiest of areas with extremely high crime rates, which is why most disabled people do not take HUD. My dad has a friend who has been disabled for about 30 years and if it wasnt for friends and family, he wouldnt have anywhere to live, unless he wanted benefits cut to live in SS controled "homes".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what to say. He just moved in a few weeks ago and it's nice, really nice.

 

Now that you mention it I believe he does get food stamps too, so it isn't just SS benefits. But really, he is doing OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm, I'd say HOMELESS qualifies as pretty freaking poor, as does Welfare and growing up in projects.

 

The $40,000 a year job was out of my own pocket, the initial investment was about $300 and it grew from there and was a huge stepping stone both in life lessons and my current career. ANYONE with hands could have done what I did, but they didn't, so it's a question of free will and in general people are lazy and wait for fortune to find them, life doesn't work that way.

I am sure most poor people are just waiting for a fortune to come knocking on their door :rolleyes: Most are working modest jobs, fast food or Walmart, making minimum wage or slightly higher and barely able to feed their children.

 

I am sorry ZION but I do not believe your story nor do I believe any of the circumstances you have represented. Going from peddling chocolate bars to peddling with Lance Armstrong is not unheard of but that is one hell of a stretch. Most homeless people worry about finding a place to live and getting enough food to survive let alone getting a small buisness liscence and starting up a mom and pop shop.

 

I would have a better time understanding your position if only you seemed to give a damn about these people, poverty is a vicious circle. Once you are in poverty it is very difficult to get out and all I am saying that by giving these people an extra push we might be able to give them the kickstart they need to break the cycle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have a better time understanding your position if only you seemed to give a damn about these people, poverty is a vicious circle.  Once you are in poverty it is very difficult to get out and all I am saying that by giving these people an extra push we might be able to give them the kickstart they need to break the cycle.

Believe what you want, that doesn't invalidate it's truth.

 

Peddled with/against Lance, yes; peddled choclate bars, no.

 

I never said I started a mom and pop shop, again you make things up and draw your own conclusions.

 

I don't give a damn about these people so much that I go to great lengths and expense to get them jumpstarted financially, and I've seen promising progress.

 

Maybe you should do a little research on notable wealthy people and learn about the very humble begginnings we often come from. Take Oprah for instance, she came from more impoverished beginnings than I, now she's a multi-billionaire.

 

The point is you and others made assumptions that I because I am wealthy don't know what it is like to be poor and thus cannot relate to the lower and middle classes, you couldn't be further from the truth.

Edited by Z10N

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what to say. He just moved in a few weeks ago and it's nice, really nice.

 

Now that you mention it I believe he does get food stamps too, so it isn't just SS benefits. But really, he is doing OK.

Ahh, yes, I forgot about the mighty foodstamp piece I will get, if approved. I will receive a whopping $25 a month. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Believe what you want, that doesn't invalidate it's truth.

 

Peddled with/against Lance, yes; peddled choclate bars, no.

 

I never said I started a mom and pop shop, again you make things up and draw your own conclusions.

 

I don't give a damn about these people so much that I go to great lengths and expense to get them jumpstarted financially, and I've seen promising progress.

 

Maybe you should do a little research on notable wealthy people and learn about the very humble begginnings we often come from. Take Oprah for instance, she came from more impoverished beginnings than I, now she's a multi-billionaire.

 

The point is you and others made assumptions that I because I am wealthy don't know what it is like to be poor and thus cannot relate to the lower and middle classes, you couldn't be further from the truth.

I cannot see too many people that have experianced poverty supporting the removal of social program's as well as not raising the minimum wage. Not only that you also take cheap shots at people that are impoverished.

 

Maybe you do understand poverty and maybe you are sympathetic but you certainly do not come across that way. I am willing to bet that the majority of Billionares are not self made and certainly did not start in poverty and if they did it was probably in a country that gave a damn about their poor people!

 

Good for you if you went from rags to riches, you are certainly the exception to the rule if this is the truth. Like I said, most poor people are too busy working and attempting to survive to pursue a higher form of education and you can throw all of the education you want at them but if they are fighting to survive then they will not attend a class when they could be making money to feed their kids. An increase in social programs can ultimately break the cycle and allow these people an opportunity to succeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is what Soc Sec pays in 2005

 

Estimated Average Monthly Social Security Benefits Payable in January 2005: Before 2.7% COLA After 2.7% COLA

All Retired Workers $ 930 $ 955

Aged Couple, Both Receiving Benefits $1,532 $1,574

Widowed Mother and Two Children $1,927 $1,979

Aged Widow(er) Alone $ 896 $ 920

Disabled Worker, Spouse and One or More Children $1,458 $1,497

All Disabled Workers $ 871 $ 895

 

Disabled income is based upon your how long you worked and how much you contributed. A person with no work history has not contributed and therefore receives a minimum level of benefit. I think it is $595 a month. I think we can assume it is less than the $871 above. That would be $10,500 a year I agree that is a lot more than $0 but I wouldn't think you could buy cable, housing and food for that.

SSI

 

After 2 years of qualifying disability you become eligible for Part A Medicare and can Purchase Part B (just like someone over 65). Depending upon state regulations you may be immediately eligible for Medicaid. Medicare does not cover pharmaceuticals but Medicaid does.

 

I agree that that the medical benefits are worth any price because private insurance can cost $1000 a month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the minimum wage,

 

Given the ceiling on income that the poor have to achieve before becoming subject to income tax, wouldn't a higher minimum wage amount to a tax cut? Oh yes it would, but it wouldn't provide the same political divedend that preying on the poor does for the moneyed class.

 

I

Edited by Iain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, a higher minimum wage might amount to a net tax increase if it meant that the people who were paid it had to pay higher taxes. That might be offset by the number of jobs that were driven off the books or offshore though. The economy has a way of staying efficient despite government intervention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, a higher minimum wage might amount to a net tax increase if it meant that the people who were paid it had to pay higher taxes.

The point is that the bulk of low-wage earners would enjoy an increase of salary without reaching another tax-bracket, amounting to a tax-break.

 

I

Edited by Iain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I partially stated when I started this topic. EDUCATION will guarantee anyone a wage that is must higher than minimum. The only people I know that are educated and cannot find a living wage job are people that 'Wait' for a job to present itself to them. This will never happen. A person must be very agressive when seeking employment. What you seek, you shall find.

 

Raising the minimum wage to $7 /hr will do nothing to help the average worker. If you cannot live on $5.25/hr, you surely cannot live on $7/hr. This is not a solution.

 

Education is the only way to go. The additional incentives put in place by GWB has made it possible for anyone to obtain higher education that is willing to invest the time and devotion required to earn a comfortable living.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is that the bulk of low-wage earners would enjoy an increase of salary without reaching another tax-bracket, amounting to a tax-break.

 

I

Actually, I believe that a pretty fair number that would not have had to pay taxes at all would end up having to pay them, that is an increase. For those that were already paying, it would be an effective decrease in an indiorect way. But due to the economic factors I went into earlier, this is a pipe dream.

 

 

While we are on the subject, I don't support the minimum wage increase but I do support raising the point at which one would pay taxes, in addition to cutting taxes in the lowest bracket.

 

I believe this would be more effective and would not put the financial burden on the small businesses that would be adversely affected by a wage increase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Education is the only way to go. The additional incentives put in place by GWB has made it possible for anyone to obtain higher education that is willing to invest the time and devotion required to earn a comfortable living.

I would add to that fisacal responsibility, fiscal conservatism, a tax cut in the lowest bracket, raising the point at which taxes must be paid, and reforming the tax code.

 

Education is key. To be more specific, quality education.

 

Just throwing money at schools is not a solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And raising the minimum wage will prove to be counterproductive if not a complete failure and a step backwards. Everyone will be worse off because of the increase in unemployment that will result from an increase in the minimum wage.

 

The standard economic model will prove this beyond a resonable doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. It can provide only a very temporary and very slight improvement for some, it is not a solution.

 

I can see how those who are already earning minimum wage would want an increase because it would be a raise, everybody wants a raise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A model cannot prove anything it can only predict. Thus far increases in minimum wage have not empirically demonstrated loss in job creation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A model cannot prove anything it can only predict. Thus far increases in minimum wage have not empirically demonstrated loss in job creation.

Partial repeat of my first post in this thread:

 

The Beveridge Curve.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...Oct/ai_20151864

 

The Phillips Curve.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PhillipsCurve.html

 

Unemployment.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Unemployment.html

 

Labor Unions.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/LaborUnions.html

 

The Wage Curve.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~blnchflr/papers/WageCurve.pdf

 

If the wage exceeds the market-clearing level, the

numbers of individuals who wish to supply their labor exceeds the number whom firms wish to

employ. Unemployment results. The higher the wage, the greater the degree of unemployment.

Macroeconomics key principles.

http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072...y_concepts.html

 

 

 

The supply curve for labor shows the number of people willing to work at any given real wage. Since more people will work at a higher real wage, the supply curve is upward-sloping.

 

 

 

 

Two reasons for the increasing wage inequality in the United States are economic globalization and skill-biased technological change. Both have increased the demand for, and hence the real wages of, relatively skilled and educated workers. Attempting to block globalization and technological change is counterproductive, however, since both factors are essential to economic growth and increased productivity. To some extent, the movement of workers from lower-paying to higher-paying jobs or industries (worker mobility) will counteract the trend toward wage inequality. A policy of providing transition aid and training for workers with obsolete skills is a more useful response to the problem.

 

Edited by Chopdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The essential problem with economic platforms is that people don't vote for what is best for all Americans as the original post question asks, they vote for what is best for themselves. Even if they no longer on minimum wage many remember it, or somebody close to them is on it.

 

Kerry is selling a populrly flavored softdrink but it will rot your teeth.

 

 

This is classic Kant philosophy versus Mill philosophy.

 

We want to think we follow Mill, but we Kant.... ;) (punny, eh?)

 

How votes are genrally cast all about what makes the average Joe feel good, but certainly not about what is best for all, that is a flaw of democracy.

 

 

How many of you would vote for a candidate that would push a policy that would devastate your life if you knew for certain without doubt it was for the greater public good by far? Be honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many of you would vote for a candidate that would push a policy that would devastate your life if you knew for certain without doubt it was for the greater public good by far?  Be honest.

So true. That's why it's dangerous to give a lot of power to the government, because the fears of the majority can be convinced to do things that oppress the liberties of minorities in one way or another. (Witness the use of the Patriot Act by Ashcroft.)

 

Given that illegal immigrants are increasingly filling low-wage jobs, without any prosecution from the govt, it seems a higher min wage would just accelerate that trend.

 

But as far as the word "devastate" I think we're back to the fear thing. Losing your job is not like losing your life, or losing a family member. It's stressful but I know that when I have lost my job in the past I have usually found myself better off within a year. When people have the wrong attitude about the job search ("I want the exact job I had before, I'm not willing to retrain or learn a new skill, I won't move to a new city, I won't take anything lower than my old salary...") they reduce their opportunities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But as far as the word "devastate" I think we're back to the fear thing. Losing your job is not like losing your life, or losing a family member. It's stressful but I know that when I have lost my job in the past I have usually found myself better off within a year. When people have the wrong attitude about the job search ("I want the exact job I had before, I'm not willing to retrain or learn a new skill, I won't move to a new city, I won't take anything lower than my old salary...") they reduce their opportunities.

I tried to use extreme language to drive the point home, just to leave little room for sqirming in the response. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Given that illegal immigrants are increasingly filling low-wage jobs, without any prosecution from the govt, it seems a higher min wage would just accelerate that trend.

 

 

:beer:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many of you would vote for a candidate that would push a policy that would devastate your life if you knew for certain without doubt it was for the greater public good by far? Be honest.

 

I am an extreme liberal, not an ounce of conservatism in my body, in the Canadian election I voted for the conservatives for the good of everybody else. I agree much more with the liberal platform but I voted against it because it seemed that most people did not know what they were talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...