This is particularly for our Conservative Members but I need to understand something. There are three things that I have accepted as FACT. Let me know which is wrong. 1. WE WILL NEVER HAVE 100% EMPLOYMENT It seems like between 3~5 percent FROM WIKI: There were about 125.9 million adult women in the United States in 2014. The number of men was 119.4 million That gives us about 245.5 million Adults --> 7.36 million unemployed 2. MINIMUM WAGE DOES NOT PAY ENOUGH TO SUPPORT *ANY* HOUSEHOLD https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2016/home.htm " 80.4 million workers age 16 and older in the United States were paid at hourly rates, representing 58.3 percent of all wage and salary workers" "Among those paid by the hour, 542,000 workers earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 1.3 million had wages below the federal minimum. Together, these 1.8 million workers with wages at or below the federal minimum made up 2.3 percent of all hourly paid workers." So 2.3 % of 80.4 million = 1.85 million employees 3. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THERE SHOULD BE NO WELFARE. - THEY SHOULD GET JOBS!! https://www.quora.com/How-many-people-are-on-welfare-in-the-United-States 73,633,050 individuals were enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP in the 51 states reporting May 2018 data. This represents approximately 23% of all Americans, or about one in four. "Obviously, there is overlap between the programs so that many people are enrolled in both SNAP and Medicaid. But there are some who are only enrolled in one of the programs" https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-97.html 21.3 Percent of U.S. Population Participates in Government Assistance Programs Each Month - 2015 While most participants work in a given month while they receive SNAP, even more work within a year. Among non-disabled adults participating in SNAP in a particular month in mid-2012, 52 percent worked in that month, but about 74 percent worked at some point in the year before or after that month (a period of 25 months) https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-...-participants-work-but-often-in-unstable-jobs So 1. WE WILL NEVER HAVE 100% EMPLOYMENT - generally at least 3% 'reported' unemployment 2. MINIMUM WAGE DOES NOT PAY ENOUGH TO SUPPORT *ANY* HOUSEHOLD - and People believe there should be no increase in minimum wage 3. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THERE SHOULD BE NO WELFARE. - THEY SHOULD GET JOBS!! - with 50+% having worked within the month they get welfare My question is How do you expect these people to survive? 82.8 million Americans receive some sort of Gov Assist. . . . even if it is just medical insurance What *Exactly* are they suppose to do? Getting a second job means someone else becomes unemployed With no food, no medical insurance and probably becoming homeless without Gov assistance Sounds like great plan to push people into crime, while spreading disease and sickness. I am just totally not understand the plan of conservatives on this issue Help me understand While supporting Coal Miners REFUSING retraining because they are waiting on those jobs (70K a year without even a high school diploma requirement - almost the closest thing we have to an inherited job) Rocket River I think those numbers are low but I just want to start the convo.
From my understanding of conservative/libertarian viewpoints, they usually claim these solutions to unemployment/poverty: Lower minimum wage to increase available jobs and compete with outsourcing Remove age limits so your kids can help support households Remove safety/environmental regulations so businesses can afford to pay higher "minimum wages" There will always be winner and losers, don't be a loser (ie. bootstraps)
Lowering the minimum wage means MORE people in NEED of Welfare Removing Age Limits - This is so 1910s and 1920s Kid Labor etc - means more jobs to kids which means less jobs for adults Removing Safety /Evironmental Regularions - This is so 1910s and 1920s - people getting maimed by machines - means more people NEED Med Insurance Lastly is a LET THEM EAT CAKE and STARVE MFer STARVE!! Mentality which will lead to more desperate people which will lead to more crime Rocket RIver
I've been watching this thread for a conservative to come take a crack at it. I am disappoint. I'll do my level best to fill the gap, not that I'll convince myself. 1. No, we don't want to have full employment. The potential to be unemployed is the incentive to have workers be productive. If they didn't worry about losing their job, they wouldn't try hard, and productivity would suffer. It does not have to be the same people in the pool of the unemployed all the time. Someone who wants better for themselves can pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get a job, while someone else who doesn't cherish his job can take his spot among the unemployed. In that sense, 3% unemployment can mean a person will only be unemployed 3% of the time. And yes, it's hard on people in that spot, but we do have short-term assistance from government and charities to help people through (not to mention the savings people should build while employed, and the help of their families and friends). 2. No, minimum wage isn't enough to support a household. But, it may be an appropriate wage for someone who contributes to the household income -- a teenage son for example. Just like the fear of unemployment should make a worker try harder, the desire to get more than minimum wage should incent action. Adults should get more skills, make themselves more valuable, and command a higher salary. If they aren't willing to put in the work, they face the consequences. Sounds harsh, but look at the alternative -- if you mandate that workers are paid more than their work is worth, the job will go away entirely. It won't even be available to that teenaged son who just needs some beer money, or the retiree that just needs an excuse to go out and meet people. Which is why we should not have a minimum wage at all. There are a number of jobs that would exist at a lower pay level that can be appropriate to some workers with the right set of circumstances. 3. Welfare is a market distortion that allows employers to get away with paying less. It is, essentially, a subsidy to the employer. To have a viable position to offer a worker, any company would need to provide enough compensation to sustain and reproduce that worker. If compensation was so low a worker would literally die, then the proposition isn't sustainable and compensation would necessarily have to go up. But, if a government fills that gap to feed and house that worker, it undercuts workers' bargaining power with the company and the company can get away paying less than subsistence wages. Cutting welfare puts the cost of sustaining that worker where it belongs, on the company buying his labor. Did I do alright? Didn't want to strawman anything.
I'd provide standard universal income of $2,000 a month for a limited number of years (22-60) for 2 adults and increase the money put into public housing. By a lot. They'd be in rural areas with efficient transportation systems in place, and the residents can work on the interiors. This is a more pleasing option to the death star apartment units you find in major urban cities like NY. More importantly, education on birth control and family planning. The everyone needs to have a family and kids thing is a dangerous, religious based motto that leads to poor who cannot afford to look after themselves having kids, getting married and digging themselves into a deeper hole. You can find value in hobbies and other items that keeps the cycle of suffering from continuing. This is huge for society. 10% cuts to defense spending to allow for this. There is nothing wrong with people not contributing to society, but being a burden to it because of miseducation and delusions you can finance your way to material glory is a problem.
A few comments 1. there is an effective role for minimum wage when it is used to mop up the tail end of a normal/Gaussian income distribution. This helps to clear out straggler and extreme cases. But when the income distribution is abnormal, particularly when it bulges at the lower end like we currently have, raising the minimum wage simply worsens the underlying problem. That abnormal distribution needs to be corrected (e.g. via better quality, quantity, composition, distribution and mobility of the labor force) but it cant be done using the minimum wage as a bludgeon. The current application of minimum wage by the democrats is an abuse of it. 2. Unemployment should never be zero in a growing economy. You need that margin for effective dynamics between the employer and the employed e.g. as new companies are hiring, poorly performing ones should be dying and laying off. What is the sweet point would depend on various factors, including industry specifics (cos some skills are more portable than others) but I think less than 5% across board would suffice for most systems. 3. I think social welfare should exist but iyt should be as a safety net. The system should not incentivize people to depend on social welfare like we currently have e.g. a lot of people in section 8 housing do not look to improve their situation as having a higher income would indirectly penalize them. similar situation occurs with taxes and several other rules like rent control. Social welfare and similar safe guard should not be a place of comfort. 4. Another important item is Healthcare and Medicare. Almost everyone would admit that the current system is not sustainable. Medical costs rises with age.So with the current system, we are currently paying for some today to keep them alive to likely cost us more tomorrow i.e. the more care you provide to someone today, the more costly care you are likely to provide in the future. A sustainable (but likely unpopular) system would be the reverse of what we have today i.e. govt cares for you from birth till retirement age and from then on you and your loved ones take over that responsibility. In that arrangement, people are more likely to stay healthy and have good habits when the are younger, as otherwise they will face the financial consequences when they are older. That can be contrasted with the current scenario where people look forward to medicare taking of the consequences of their bad choices. A middle ground solution would be mandating health insurance for all. If people have coverage, then they are more likely to try and get their money's worth. Also if properly structured, the system can reward those with better habits and penalize others, with the aim of having people in better health when the transition into medicare and thus potentially reducing medicare cost. Its weird that conservatives are against the individual mandate as it probably one of the best ways to address the looming fiscal disaster without directly cutting medicare.
implemented already I guess [Their report suggests that most of the sex hormone -- source of concern as an endocrine disruptor with possible adverse effects on people and wildlife -- enters drinking water supplies from other sources.] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101208125813.htm
Maybe in the middle east and parts of Africa, but not the US. India and China have been successful with voluntary sterilization. I would present an option, and to those that forego birth control and start having kids, they have to deal directly with consequences of their actions.
I was waiting for it as well .. . . . I want legit information I am truly trying to understand Rocket River
If you find it economically difficult here in America, then simply pack-up and immigrate to a country where there is an abundance of menial jobs that pay 3-8 times your wage here -- allowing you to boost your standard of living by the same magnitude. Oh, what's that you say: such a country doesn't exist? Too bad.
1980, the population of USA was about 225 millions,now close to 335 million China 1billion to now 1.3 India 700 millions to now 1.2billion Egypt/Iran 35 millions to 80-100 millions, substantial growth disparity does not suggest any volunterly population control in ME or India,nor it's volunterly case for China I would suggest tax credit for parents based on their kids academic records, but most poor performers might not care or affected and mostly their situation could be worsened ,anyhow population growth in the US is very positivily sustainable,and unemployment rate is substantially low
"voluntary" told it is reversible lied as to the nature of operation paid money to undergo forced to undergo mostly forced upon the lower caste
While you will likely never have 100% employment due to natural inefficiencies, those who are unemployed should not remain the same people over long periods of time. Programs like unemployment compensation encourage people to remain unemployed for longer than they otherwise would. If you can get by, even if you struggle, on what unemployment pays you, then you are considerably more likely to run the clock out on that before finding work. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be unemployment compensation, I'm just explaining how it can cause problems. The minimum wage will never pay enough to support "ANY" household, no matter what you set the arbitrary floor at. You could make the minimum wage 100K an hour and that still wouldn't be enough to support "ANY" household. This is always something that certain political types always fail to understand. The problem with welfare is that more often than not it makes people dependent on it and that leads to sucking them in to a cycle of poverty they'll never get out of. It allows people to live above their means with government help which allows a lot of people to find relative comfort in situations that should not be comfortable. I look at welfare as a crutch. There are times you truly need a crutch but if you never stop using it, you make yourself weaker and eventually you'll become so weak you won't be able to manage without it. Being on welfare shouldn't be a career path.
This will be interesting to look back from when robots take over more than half of the white collar jobs underpinning the American middle class. Having someone serve you food at a restaurant and a human being driving you there will only happen on birthdays and communions for the remaining middle class.
