Social Issue: On Economies - The Minimum Wage

page: 7
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 01:42 PM

Federal tenant-based housing assistance has grown from serving 30,000 households through the Experimental Housing Allowance Program to serving 2 million families today through the Section 8 program.

In March 2005, the Food Stamp Program served 25.4 million people, supporting food purchases of low-income households. That is 8.56 million more people than the low point of July 2000. Over half of all food stamp recipients are children. Most Food Stamp households have income below the poverty line (about $19,000 for a family of four in 2005) and more than one-third of Food Stamp households have income below half of the poverty line, according to The Food Research and Action Center.

and then of course, their always the salvation army kitchen dishing out food to those families and individuals that don't meet the government's criteria. as well as the food banks, ect....

[edit on 29-7-2006 by dawnstar]

posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 01:42 AM
Dawnstar, that is again off topic, after which I tried to bring it back on topic, again. I'll answer you only one more time unless it's on topic. Sorry.

I'd like to find the statistics of those numbers to see how many of them are actually in need of those services, and how many are either mentally or physically handicapped, and therefor deserve to be on those programs.

The rest of what you posted only means that tens of millions of tax dollars are going to those who are getting paid to be poor, and like it, and the rest are people who couldn't keep their legs together, or zipper zipped, and had sex/children even though they couldn't afford it.

[edit on 30-7-2006 by zappafan1]

posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 07:00 AM
well, let's see, more than one third the households have incomes over half the proverty line, that's really low, I don't think their problem is related to minimum wage, maybe too many kids, or disability, or maybe even drug or alchohol use.

that leaves two thirds left, most of which have income below the proverty line.....they're working just not earning enough to meet the needs for their family.

or at least that would be my guess......don't hold your breeth waiting for the government to hand you a breakdown of the numbers, they ain't gonna. I'd recommend writing to some federal and state agencies, or legislatures asking them, but if you have the same luck as me, you will get what are obviously bogus numbers anyways....

but you say more on topic, so okay....

The house has passed a bill that would raise minimum wage in three 75 cent increments starting in January. So, what's the catch???

The most controversial tax provision would extend reductions in the estate tax indefinitely, but it would not eliminate the tax, as many conservatives have sought.

Under current law, estates of up to $2 million are exempt from the tax, and amounts over that are levied at a top rate of 46 percent. The exemption and top rate are scheduled to reach $3.5 million and 45 percent in 2009; the tax is to disappear in 2010, then revert to an exemption of $1 million and a top rate of 55 percent in 2011.

The provision before the House would reinstate the tax in 2010 with an exemption of $3.75 million and a top rate of 40 percent.

Further cuts would lift the exemption to $5 million and lower the top rate to 30 percent by 2015, after which the exemption would be indexed to inflation and the rate would remain 30 percent.

Other tax breaks, all of which expired this year and which the legislation would reinstate through 2007, include:

• Allowing deductions of up to $4,000 for higher education expenses.

• Allowing deductions for state and local sales taxes instead of state and local income taxes.

• Extending the research and development tax credit.

the bill also extends some tax breaks, of course....
don't really see any that would help any businesses out there that might be hurt by having to pay the higher wages, but what do you want, it's congress, they're more interested in votes and logic!

The senate also seems to have a version. This one should scare ya...

"(B) the wage provided for under clauses (ii) and (iii) of subparagraph (A) shall be automatically increased for the year involved by a percentage equal to the percentage by which the annual rate of pay for Members of Congress increased for such year as provided for pursuant to the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31).'

it's tied to the increases of their wages!!! and I doubt if it would do anything that would reduce their pay increases, regardless of the consequenses!!! Man, I could be making $20 an hour by retirement time!!!

this one here looks interesting....sounds more in line to what I am thinking...


This Act may be cited as the `Living American Wage (LAW) Act of 2006'.


It is the sense of Congress that--

(1) the Federal minimum wage should, as a minimum , be adjusted every 4 years so that a person working for such a wage may earn an annual income that is not less than 112 percent of the Federal poverty threshold, as determined by the Census Bureau; and

(2) Congress or any of the several States may establish a higher minimum wage requirement than that established in this Act.


Section 6 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 is amended--

(1) by amending subsection (a)(1) to read as follows:

`(1) except as otherwise provided in this section, not less than $5.15 an hour beginning September 1, 1997, and not less than the amount determined by the Secretary under subsection (b) beginning January 1, 2007;'; and

(2) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c) and inserting after subsection (a) the following:

`(b)(1) Not later than September 1, 2006, and once every 4 years thereafter, the Secretary shall determine the minimum wage rate applicable under subsection (a)(1) based on the formula described in paragraph (2). The Secretary shall publish such wage rate in the Federal Register not later than October 1 of each year. If such determination results in a lower minimum wage than that then in effect, the Secretary shall not adjust the minimum wage then in effect pursuant to this subsection.

`(2) The minimum wage rate determined by the Secretary under paragraph (1) shall be the minimum hourly wage sufficient for a person working for such wage 40 hours per week, 52 weeks per year, to earn an annual income in an amount that is 12 percent higher than the Federal poverty threshold for a two person household, with one person a child under age 18, and living in the 48 contiguous States, as published for each such year by the Census Bureau.'.

but their's no tax breaks for the businesses that might be unable to absorb the increase in payroll....

[edit on 30-7-2006 by dawnstar]

a little birdie told me I had to learn how to use the external sourse quote box, so I'm learning......

[edit on 30-7-2006 by dawnstar]

posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 12:15 PM
As has been shown in Australia, and even in New Jersey, raising the minimum wage above what the market would normally allow for causes loss of jobs and lowering of hours worked for those still employed. If the new MW law stands in Chicago (I doubt it will) it will have the same results.

Those who are pushing for the higher MW are the unions, as their pay is directly related to the minimum wage. So, if the MW goes up, so do their wages, without the inconvenience of contract negotiations.

posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 04:46 PM
and when the heck was the last time us pions got a danged raise???

it's simple, you have a choice.

either the government keeps half hazardly handing money out to help the poor, or wages will have to go up!! it's that simple, the only alternative would be for their workers to be homeless...or their rents be lowered (making a few very unhappy landlords), hungry....or the cost of food be lowered (would make a few other people unhappy)....cold...or the cost of electrity could be lowered......(would make bush's buddies unhappy!!!), ect.....

society needs the goods and services, so the employees are needed, the employees need a certain amount of money to live.....period!! so how would you like these employees to come up with this money??

[edit on 4-8-2006 by dawnstar]

posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 01:31 AM

by dawnstar:
and when the heck was the last time us pions got a danged raise???

REPLY: Talk to your employer.

....society needs the goods and services, so the employees are needed, the employees need a certain amount of money to live.....period!! so how would you like these employees to come up with this money??

REPLY: I fondly recall selling seasonal greeting cards year-round in my mid-teens, and delivering newspapers. Then I worked two jobs for a couple of years, which gave me a good work ethic. 30 years ago, just before entering the military, I started a small business, which was kept in operation during my service. Even today 50 hour weeks are not uncommon. I've seen both sides of the issue.

[edit on 5-8-2006 by zappafan1]

posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 01:45 AM
Soooooo..... the Chicago Box Store Ordinance (mandatory $10.00 per hour, and $3.00 perk minimum.... which actually means the employer is paying about $18 to $20 per hour for that "minimum wage" job) against the big "box stores" (specifically, Wal Mart, Home Depot and Target) has produced it's first casualty.
(Remember, Quinns first law: Liberalism ALWAYS generates the exact OPPOSITE of it's stated intent).

Target is using the John Gault solution (from: Atlas Shrugged) and is in the process of closing an existing store in a 32 acre mall, and will most likely also cease bulding another 160,000 Sq. Foot store on the other side of town. This is exactly what Wal Mart should have done in Maryland, but they're still in court about that case.

So, it appears that Chicago didn't want the jobs, tax base, personal and state income taxes, etc. So, again, the city loses; the employees lose, and the "poor" lose a place to shop where they could by less expensive goods, saving them money for other uses.

[edit on 5-8-2006 by zappafan1]

posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 09:08 PM
so, I take your answer to mean, you think that the money people need should come from employment, or their own business endeavors....

unless of course, their is a definate justifiable reason why they can't.......llike a handicap.

but ya see, this is where I have a problem.

there's jobs out there, all you have to do is look in the paper and you will see quite a few. the amount of experience they desire seems to indicate to me that they want someone well beyond their teen years. they're obviously not looking for kids who are living at home and dependant on mom or dad. they'd be more within the age of those who might have kids. and, the wage they are offering isn't gonna come close to supporting a family! so, you say, ya go to school, work more hours, start a business, whatever....spend more time making money, less time with the family......

but then, have you heard the gripes about all these unattended kids running lose?
you'd think that family time would be considered important in our society.

what you are suggesting isn't the solution, and in many of these jobs, like wal mart and such, you'll be lucky to get 40 hours from them let alone 50!

the cheap goods are not those things that people need to live. rent, food, electricity, healthcare, they've all increased at an amazing rate....but the wages for most of the people have remained the same...
over 50% of the kids in the city I live in fall under the income guidelines and recieve either free or reduced was worse in the city I lived in in NY.
and, if you want my opinion, the numbers of people actually needing partial assistance in meeting their living expenses has gotten higher and higher through the years.

cost of living rises, wages decrease, or stay stagnant....more people need help, government helps, and the government, by helping them, causes the cost of living to raise more, which cause more people to need help, which cause the government to help more, which throws the economy more off balance...a never ending cycle....
the solution is gonna have to be a little more creative than having more people go into debt with student loans or working more hours.

the government has to find a way to influence the economy in a way where the cost of living goes down while the wages goes up to the point where most of the population is able to fullfill their obligations, both financially and personal/family...

and why shouldn't they, it was their manipulation that contributed in it becomming so out of balance to begin with.

[edit on 5-8-2006 by dawnstar]

posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 12:35 AM

We estimate the longer-run effects of minimum wages by using information on the minimum wage history that workers have faced since potentially entering the labor market. The evidence indicates that even as individuals reach their late 20's, they work less and earn less the longer they were exposed to a higher minimum wage, especially as a teenager.

From: [link]

Nor is the minimum wage a well-targeted policy for reducing poverty. The usual stereotype is of a minimum-wage parent with no other family members working. But that's a small segment of minimum-wage workers. That same EPI Web site states that 14.9 million workers would benefit from an increase in the minimum wage to $7.25, 6.6 million of whom currently earn less than $7.25 -- they assume zero job loss -- and 8.3 million of whom earn more but, they claim, get a spillover. Yet EPI admits that only 1.4 million of the 14.9 million, less than 10 percent, are single parents with children.

From: [link]

A vast majority of teens and young adults who would be directly affected by the proposed minimum wage are also enrolled in school — 66.5 percent (or 3.6 million) of minimum wage workers (ages 16 to 24) are enrolled in high school or college. However, most of these teens and young adults enrolled in school do not live in poor families. Data from 1998 indicate that 82.6 percent (2.9 million) of enrolled teens and young adults live in families with incomes greater than 149 percent of the poverty level.

From: [link]

".... the government has to find a way to influence the economy in a way where the cost of living goes down while the wages goes up to the point where most of the population is able to fullfill their obligations, both financially and personal/family...

and why shouldn't they, it was their manipulation that contributed in it becomming so out of balance to begin with.

REPLY: It's not governments job to manipulate the economy. And, no, their minor manipulation did NOT screw it up.

[edit on 6-8-2006 by zappafan1]

posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 08:47 AM
well, let''s see, in one city in n.y., the government was paying out $1000 for apartments, not really nice ones at that.....there wasn't any working people who were making the kind of money needed to pay that k ind of rent that would be willing to rent one...although I imagine there would be some working people who were willing to live there if the rent was priced more reasonably..

as it was, there was at least five times when my working family had to move because hud decided that our home was worth m ore than we could afford, so the landlords decided what the heck and rose the we moved.

now, if they had left things as they were, those landlords would more than like would have been charging less rent, since they would have wanted their units filled.....

same with medical care, same with food, same with energy....

and the same with wages, some force would be naturally exerted to raise them...

if this isn't manipalation, what is it?

top topics
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in