No, this is where it should be "triaged" as you put it and folks allowed to die. Exactly what you argued for. And like I said earlier and you have conveniently refused to address, Medicaid is already on a path to irrelevance as the majority of doctors now no longer accept it and this will only rise as time goes along. What next, you'll take the next logical step in "compulsory" and start directly stealing the labor and services of doctors?
It won't rise if medicine is socialized altogether (which it will be). If the federal government is the only game in town, the doctors would fall in line immediately. I would love to see the fed crush the AMAs hammer lock on doctor supply. This organization artificially limits the number of doctors that we produce each year.
Have you not looked at the numbers Glen? Are you not aware that health insurance will become unaffordable for even the middle class in a few decades? Every objective measure shows that the countries that have socialized medicine are kicking our ass. They pay HALF what we pay and have much higher rates of satisfaction.
Triage happens whether you like it or not. For profit insurance companies do it now, I would like to see the federal government taking over that function.
Ahh, the words of a child, how adorable.
Why would you think I'm referring to household anyways?
i didn't cherry pick. i just wasn't sure about the 30k,
Military enlisted total comp is ~100K for jobs like pharm tech, dorm managing, tool crib. etc. Again, I lol'd Police make a median of over 100k here. Correctional officer over 100k. Librarians over 80k. Not counting pension, etc. Yeah, so great!
I don't think $15 would hurt even the most piss-poor states.
Studies show that minimum wage isn't that detrimental to employment levels
(Hours worked is a measure of employment levels)leading the researchers to conclude that the minimum wage reduced the number of hours worked quarterly by 3.2
Easy to just explain. Some jobs can make more than the median, but it's **** because of no pension or because of the work conditions suck compared to other jobs e.g. truck driver. Any labor econ textbook will tell you government jobs have less demanding work and better work conditions generally in comparison to private sector jobs that have equivalent pay.
How does that help YOUR case?
Anyway, if you want to think raising minimum wage raises the unemployment level, then so would credential creep, etc.
Minimum wage should be enough for a single person with no extenuating circumstances (major health issues, kids, etc.) to support themselves. That may mean sharing an apartment with a roommate to save money, driving a crappy car, or the occasional night eating a box of mac n cheese for dinner, but that's all minimum wage should guarantee: a meager means of surviving without needing government assistance to get by.
Labor is a product like everything else that is traded. Fiddling with the price system only distorts things.
Labor as a product means American workers have to compete with slave labor in Asia. You want to have that standard of living here? We move closer every year as costs rise and wages do not match the increase. Skyrocketing Welfare only proves this, as incomplete programs try to close the gap under a tangled web of forms and bureaucracy. Economically we need a better solution to keep every human participating in driving demand and liquidity. A sustainable stimulus that moves us past losing homes, healthcare, or basic needs every time Wall Street needs to downsize. We need basic income and a whole slew of other social changes.
Economics has forced me to look at these things and say we can do better. We must do better.
I am not sure how this would be accomplished given that there are no requirements on hours worked. We can already see in Seattle that it has apparently lowered hours worked. Not a ton so there might be a point where you could get close but tying the minimum wage to a lifestyle is problematic due to that restriction
Labor as a product means American workers have to compete with slave labor in Asia. You want to have that standard of living here?
We move closer every year as costs rise and wages do not match the increase. Skyrocketing Welfare only proves this, as incomplete programs try to close the gap under a tangled web of forms and bureaucracy. Economically we need a better solution to keep every human participating in driving demand and liquidity. A sustainable stimulus that moves us past losing homes, healthcare, or basic needs every time Wall Street needs to downsize. We need basic income and a whole slew of other social changes.
Economics has forced me to look at these things and say we can do better. We must do better.
Not a lifestyle, simply that 40 hours per week of minimum wage SHOULD (a subjective term) allow for a single person with no extenuating circumstances to live a meager lifestyle with no need for government assistance.
Am I advocating we form a committee or new government agency to determine this? No. But I think we can all agree that $7.25/hr, save for the very lowest cost of living areas, is insufficient to sustain an individual adult if they work 40 hours per week, which shifts the burden of closing the gap to the US tax payers via food stamps, low income housing, and so on.
Frankly, I'm all for the Federal minimum wage increasing to ~$9/hr, indexing it to inflation, and then let the states, as they do today, adjust up as needed. The only issue I see today is that the current baseline of $7.25/hour is insufficient and since it's not tied to inflation we end up with this same, silly argument every 5 years.
Why should someone be working 40 hours a week at minimum wage job? Why is that acceptable to you?
**facepalm*8
Why should someone be working 40 hours a week at minimum wage job? Why is that acceptable to you?
Because I'd rather they work 40 hours a week than live off the government. Or would you prefer they give up and suck on Uncle Sam's supple teet?
Because I'd rather they work 40 hours a week than live off the government. Or would you prefer they give up and suck on Uncle Sam's supple teet?
Good post, and so true. It also (eventually, not overnight) has the effect across an entire economy of just making $15 (or whatever number, could be one big enough to wallpaper your house with) hold only as much value as the last minimum wage amount. Because for a lot of reasons such as you mentioned, the value of labor being done for the jacked up amount didn't artificially rise to meet it. Let's not even get into the effect it has on all those already formerly earning the old minimum or x amount above it. Their employers won't magically make up the difference, most will just be kicked back down to what becomes a new lesser valued wage.Forcing (or trying to force) employers to pay untrained kids $15 an hour doesn't magically make those kids' labor more valuable, just overpriced.
.
It'd be far more effective to work on adding value to each dollar, rather than adding artificial amounts of lost-value dollars.
So someone WILLING to work minimum wage, should be given an increase because they're good at the job. Gotcha, makes sense now that you're a socialist.Because some jobs that people are qualified for, dare I say even good at, only pay minimum wage? This is an odd question. The employee has little means to change what a given job pays.
Either you'll provide a service to me that's worth to me the wages you seek and I'll hire you, or you won't and I won't hire you. You aren't competing with Asian slave labor, you're competing with your own value proposition and if it's not compelling then you WILL have that standard of living here. This isn't about "being anti-labor" or anything else, it's about being honest about reality.
And LOL at "we must do better." That's an empty slogan for empty minds. Again do you think you're going to force me or anyone else to give you a job making $__k annually?
Bringing prices down to realistic levels in a real sense, not artificially, is what would help people the most. It would also make money 'cheaper' in a sense, to loan, and to give as cost of living raises. Using devalued dollars to make up for high prices is about the worst way to go.Honestly if it wasn't for basic living eating up 105%+ of a min wage salary it'd be a lot easier. I had more money than I knew what to do with in my early mil career, because food, housing, and medical was all covered. I made less than min wage (accounting for 24hr work days, which is really what you sign up for), and had more free income than I do now at >10yrs in my career.
You mean like they do now? You mean that someone has zero initiative to better themselves should receive a pay increase?
Don't talk about mentally ill or disabled or those widowed.
Give me one reason why I should change my opinion on a grown adult making a living working 40 hours a week at a minimum wage job.
Problem with this is you're taking it out of someone's ass either way. It'll come in the form of a tax after the fact as you've outlined, or before the fact in loss of job opportunities/raises/lesser spending power to pay for forcefully overvalued labor, and if dicked with too radically, inflation.Because if the business they work for doesn't pay them at least enough to scrape by, they'll begin taking your money directly in the form of taxes.
Problem with this is you're taking it out of someone's ass either way. It'll come in the form of a tax after the fact as you've outlined, or before the fact in loss of job opportunities/raises/lesser spending power to pay for forcefully overvalued labor, and if dicked with too radically, inflation.
There is no free lunch.
I'm not opposed to a minimum wage by the way, just not one set artificially. Min wages should be decided most on a state/local level. (Though again I don't mind a federally set minimum, just it shouldn't be jacked artificially high as if it could really cover all markets in the US.)
If you'd like to speak as an employer, then I'll say that basic income doesn't care how shitty you wish to treat people. It'll cover them, tax you, and leave the market to decide the rest. Might even come with abolishing minimum wage.