He serves the needs of the upper class so well — he’s such a perfect lickspittle. His latest column deplores all this leveler talk of economic inequities: don’t you peons realize that a widening gap has two parts, the rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer, and the two have absolutely nothing to do with one another? Oh, sure, there are some perverse compensation schemes on Wall Street
, but mainly wealth is perpetuated because rich marry rich and pass on their money to their rich kids, and of course there’s nothing wrong with that, so let’s skip over that issue with one sentence and spend the whole column blaming the poor. Let’s focus on poor people! And that doesn’t mean raising the minimum wage, oh no. We have to resist the temptation to reduce everything to simple causes, therefore he proposes that the problem is simply a lack of social mobility. Just fix that. We can close the gap by closing our eyes to the sight of the 1% skittering off rapidly to the right and a world that laughs at obscene wealth and embraces pornographically hardcore wealth, and instead just tell all the poor people to start plodding off in that same direction. That’s how we’ll close the gap!
Shorter David Brooks: If the poor would just stop begging for bread and start eating cake, rather than blaming looters and exploiters and profiteers and that whole infrastructure of privilege, why, everything will be hunky dory in no time at all.
OK, let’s try it. How about giving Naquasia LeGrand a column in the NY Times, too?
Because somehow, a 22-year-old fast-food worker seems to have a better grasp of the problem of being poor in America than David Fucking Brooks.
Brooks’ column is a series of attempts to deflect by raising side issues. He tries to make the social-breakdown-causes-poverty argument, and then says social breakdown is too complicated an issue for the minimum wage to solve. “The problem you’re trying to address is part of a much bigger one! We should solve that one! And your proposed solution can’t solve that one! So we shouldn’t use it!”
All of this besides the fact that Paul Krugman, citing William Julius Wilson, explicitly debunked the morals-cause-poverty argument just days ago. The causation basically goes the other way these decades: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/08/on-fighting-the-last-war-on-poverty/ . So a higher minimum wage would in fact help solve social breakdown, because it would help solve poverty.
And polarizing. He calls income equality talk polarizing. Oh NOES, Heavens let’s not polarize people. Honest to God concern-trolling. News flash, if no one opposed a change we wouldn’t have to debate it, it would just get done. We don’t call that an “issue,” we call it “obvious.”
Shorter yet David Brooks, summarizing his life’s work: “There are two types of people in the world. Those who agree with David Brooks, and those who are through no fault of their lazy selves, terribly deluded.”
I don’t agree with raising the minimum wage as I believe it’s little more than a feel good solution that will do little to improve the lives of the poor. Instead we should invest in things like work retraining. It seems to me that the issue is that the economy has changed from manufacturing to a knowledge based economy, but our workforce has been unable to transition with it. This is in addition to our large percentage of people who are incarcerated, leaving families and neighborhoods devastated.
Latecomer:
Currently, there’s three people seeking work for every job opening. How is retraining going to solve that?
This is obviously beside the point that no matter what kind of job training you offer, you still need people to work in the food industry, retail, childcare, etc. Why don’t they deserve a living wage?
OH MY GOD WITH THE AUTOPLAYING VIDEOS JESUS
God and Jesus won’t help, but you can click ‘pause’.
…Yeah, I was going to say. The video is on autoplay. Can you do anything about that, PZ? At least put it below the fold?
Oh? And why do you believe that? It doesn’t look like you’ve compared any other countries to the US, the Land of the Working Poor.
The pause button doesn’t even load till after “welcome back, everybody”.
What did I do to provoke that, Chas? You understand that autoplay is annoying to lots of people, and that you have to click pause every single time you refresh the Pharyngula page? Sheesh. You’d think I said something beyond the pale?
I’ve got a little list
David Brooks
Bill O’Reilly
Roger Ailes
Rupert Murdoch
Charles Koch
David Koch
Sheldon Adelson
Rand Paul
Ron Paul
Hmm, just how many can a tumbrel hold, anyhow?
I like it, PZ goes full driftglass on David Brooks. Is it just me or does Colbert always seem to find the perfect person to illuminate a narrative.
Alexandria, obviously with unemployment high I think that it is a good idea for unemployment benefits to be extended until the economy gets to a better place. That said, even now part of the unemployment problem is due to a mismatch between the jobs available and the skills of workers, so retraining could still be at least part of the solution. I realize that there will still be people in the food industry. And retail, etc but I don’t agree with the notion that one deserves a so called living wage. To me its like trying to legislate poverty out of existence instead of doing things with a longer term benefit like retraining as I mentioned earlier.
latecomer:
Higher minimum wage means more money in circulation. Which means more consumer spending. Which means more jobs. And it has worked that way every time the minimum wage has been raised.
By the by, if the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation, minimum wage would be about $15 an hour. Which is enough to live on. Which was the point of minimum wage in the first place.
latecomer:
In other words, because someone doesn’t have enough (or the right type of ) education or lives in an economically distressed area or simply does not have the skills or intelligence to compete for the more skilled jobs, they deserve to be poor?
How would being less poor not be an improvement.
“they deserve to be poor?”
You’re putting words in my mouth. I don’t think anyone deserves to be poor. In fact, I think this concept of deserving is irrelevant. We should focus on what we can realistically do to decrease poverty as much as possible. The fact is that in the free market capitalistic system we have, your wages are dependant on your skills, for better or worse. We don’t disagree that the poor need help. I just don’t agree that this idea of a living wage is the best way to help.
Yet you supply no evidence that any other method works as well or better at relieving povery. It’s all your unevidenced opinion. Think about that.
I can relate. I work for AutoZone. Fortune 500. $12,000,000,000.00 in FY2013. I was hired for a full-time position. I got 40 hours/wk during the training period (3 months), 40 hours/wk during the set-up (new store) period (6 weeks) and when the new store opened I got 32-38 hours…a 5-20% reduction in pay weekly. When I talked with my SM about the hours, he said that’s what he had to work with. Screw me (my words). When I told him I had to supplement my income with a PT job, he said that’s okay, but you can’t change your availability (open to close seven days a week) for that unless you want to change to PT.
Corporations and major shareholders don’t give a shlt about the people that make them their money, though they’ll put on one he11 of a show making it look as if they do. BTW, out of the corner of their mouth, they’ll tell you to eff-off if you don’t like it. It’ll end up in civil war and they’re too stupid to see that…when their cash will be worth less than the paper it’s printed on.
Sharing is caring.
latecomer:
You do realize that we’ve had a minimum wage since 1935 and that (as Oggie pointed out) if it kept up with inflation it’d be around the $15/hour mark? And, wow, did that ever work to keep the economy healthy.
Okay, fine. If people working in retail don’t “deserve” to be poor, what are the options for retail employees to not be impoverished? Difficulty: Don’t say “get a new job” because that will just shift poverty to a different person (if it changes the individual’s economic status at all) and not actually solve the problem of having a permanent class of people living under the poverty line.
What would you suggest doing? Guaranteed minimum income for all citizens, something like that?
—Maybe now people will think twice before texting at the movies. Also, the dude clearly had it coming to him and was a hothead himself if he thought he needed to throw stuff just for being told to follow the rules and respecting the people around him.—
Because working a 40+ hour week shouldn’t be enough to get you the basic necessities of life, right?
And apparently I accidentally copy-pasted the wrong thing and didn’t notice. Bleh.
—-We don’t disagree that the poor need help. I just don’t agree that this idea of a living wage is the best way to help.—
Was what was supposed to be there.
latecomer
Maybe on your planet.
Actually, scratch what I said. How is
not saying that some people deserve to be poor?
We will always need people to run registers. We will always need people to clean our offices and care for our children. We will always need people to serve our KFC. If the multi-billion dollar per year corporations refuse to pay a living wage, what are the arguments against government setting a wage floor? Why is this an inherently bad thing?
(This is completely ignoring the fact that we don’t have anything close to a “free market” and haven’t in quite some time.)
Disclaimer: I’m doing this on the phone at work, so it’s a little hard to respond to everyone. With that said I don’t disagree that the minimum wage has helped pull people out of poverty. Raising the minimum wage again within reason might even help some people now but I’m thinking long term we need to focus more on educating people for the economy of the future. I argue that education is more efficient and has less of a chance of negatively affecting businesses.
Might? MIGHT?
Jesus. I think giving service workers a $5-$10/hour boost in pay would do a shitload to help them out of poverty because they’d have money to spend.
You haven’t really thought this through, have you?
And your evidence that raising the minimum wage effects businesses and overall economy is where? You have been snookered by right-wing talking points.
I’ve sent a complaint off to Ed about the autoplay crap — he’s been yelling at the advertisers.
Autoplay video?
Sob I wish, Colbert samples won’t play for people in the UK
At least they have put something humorous on the announcement
“Sorry but this video is unavailable from your location.
It’s one of the detriments of living under a monarchy.
But in case you can’t give up your silly accents and move to America,
watch clips from the Colbert Report on ComedyCentral.co.uk”
Bu-u-u-t it’s only available on i-player …
Like, Hey. you work 40 hours a week and can’t afford your rent? Here, have a raise! How will that NOT help?
And why does “business” deserve any preferential treatment?
(I do agree with you on the long term– we do need to improve education. We need to fund public schools and we need to offer higher ed for either free or at ridiculously low cost. We also need to fund trade schools– masons, plumbers, welders, whatever. However, that does not solve the here-and-now problems of poverty.)
latecomer #13
Fixed borkquote; preview is your friend.
latecomer #13
Actually a large part of the problem is that there are three jobseekers per available job, nationwide. I was one of 150 applicants for a part time job at the ice cream parlour (I didn’t get it). The solutions to this type of problem include increasing minimum wage (which encourages people to spend more, which in turn requires that those who supply that spending hire more, thus creating jobs), building, repairing, and improving physical and social infrastructure (which creates jobs because people have to be hired to do those things, and then creates more jobs when they spend the money they get), and interest-free business loans attached to business incubators providing technical assistance (which provide jobs by, you know, creating businesses), and guaranteed minumum income (which creates jobs for the same reason as minimum wage increases above). For a wonder, all of these things increase tax revenues too, so you can afford to do more of them, and further still they also boost everyone’s quality of life, and lay the groundwork for further economic development. They are not, however, a floor wax or a dessert topping. Education doesn’t hurt, and indeed is a part of the social infrastructure mentioned above, but more of it is a long-term prescription, not an immediate one.
What do you know, I agree with you completely. Deserve’s got nothing to do with it. The question is what realistically works to cut poverty, and the benefits of doing so, are objective questions with objective answers, and moral judgements have no relevance whatsoever. The problem is, objectively, the libertarian cant which you are about to come out with is harmful nonsense, and contrary to the practices that demonstrably do reduce poverty.
“what are the arguments against government setting a wage floor? Why is this an inherently bad thing?” I think that the research on the effects of a minimum wage have not shown a clear positive effect. Some say that it will help increase employment while others say there’s a negative impact. The lack of a clear consensus makes me wary of setting artificial wage floors. If the government is going to get involved in the economy then it should be through something with a more proven impact
@moarscienceplz #11:
It doesn’t matter — we’ll just build more tumbrels. Consider it a job creation scheme.
latecomer:
What? Did the 1950s-1970s not exist in your world?
So you want zero minimum wage? We tried that at the turn of the 20th century. It… didn’t end well.
Remember the Swiss?
The Swiss Join the Fight Against Inequality
Obviously, the Puritans did not make it down to Switzerland.
“So you want zero minimum wage? ” Ideally yes but of course that will never happen. Obviously it’s helped millions of people and I have no desire to take away minimum wages. I just wonder about the wisdom of repeatedly increasing it over time. My main beef is that it doesn’t adequately attack our long term issues. If we want to compete with the rest of the world then education is the way to go.
Then why aren’t you educating yourself with real data instead of supplying the same inane opinion over and over? That is what we are trying to get you to do. If you do, the data doesn’t say what you think it does.
Education doesn’t solve any problems for the unemployed workers at the moment. You just seem to want them to be underpaid if they ever do find a job.
How does paying people an adequate wage not help in the long term?
You can talk about international competition (*eyeroll*) all you want, but that doesn’t eliinate our need for the service industry. Which is, by necessity, delivered domestically.
Also: Why is the short term being ignored? There’s no reason why we can’t help people out of poverty now and fund programs like education now and in the future.
You still have answered why we should be bending over backwards for business interests.
Alexandra (nee Audley) @24,39
Well that was a mess. Here is the passage from Alexandra (nee Audley) I was trying to quote:
“We will always need people to run registers. We will always need people to clean our offices and care for our children. We will always need people to serve our KFC.”
I don’t think this is true, hence my post above.
Assuming that you’re correct and we’ll be able to automate everything (I have a hard time believing this, but you know, whatever), why does that mean we can’t or shouldn’t raise the minimum wage?
Please note: I am not arguing against more, better, free education or a guaranteed minimum income or massive changes to the tax structure. Why is it impossible for the so called “wealthiest country” to do all the things?
*chuckle*
That’s a good one! Anyone would think you didn’t know about the vast increase in the ratio betweenm median pay and that of CEOs over the past few decades.
Obviously, CEO skills have been improving at an amazing rate.
@Alexandra.
I definitely agree the minimum wage should be raised. This will provide immediate relief to those in need right now. That being said we need to think more deeply about the dramatic changes that are taking place in society and the economy, and realize that a raise in the minimum wage is, at best, a short-term solution to a problem that requires much more radical thought. (I don’t think you disagree with anything I am saying, I just wanted to clarify my position)
The most damning evidence that the corporations that use minimum wage employees aren’t paying their fair share is their workforce’s increasing dependence on government welfare just to make ends meet. In essence, these corporations are receiving a massive taxpayer-funded subsidy towards their labor costs.
It’s time to ensure that corporations pay their workers a living wage. Hell, you never know, they might find that a better paid workforce is a more stable, more effective one. (Shocking, I know.)
latecomer
You just contradicted yourself in consecutive sentences; either the minimum wage is a good idea or it’s not (it is), and once you’ve agreed to that, there is no conceivable reason to not support increasing it at least at the rate of inflation (assuming, of course, that you have even a 101 level understanding of economics)
Do you mean those parts of the world that have higher minimum wages, better physical and social infrastructure, and consequently better economics and standards of living than the US, or the parts that are impoverished hellholes? ( I realize that this is somewhat simplified and there is wide variation, but it is broadly true.)
I’m mainly focused on long term help, but when it comes to helping people now. Instead of increasing the minimum wage, I would prefer some other stimulus like tax cuts, increased unemployment benefits, or something similar. They’ll have a wider impact and they don’t have a negative impact on business profit
grandolddeity: I just want to let you know that you can swear openly here. In fact, we encourage it.
In this case, the autoplay video is the one you posted.
Business profit is only a concern for the small percentage of people who it actually goes to. Most of whom do little to earn it and don’t need any more of it.
Just a minor side point: when the “great princess[1],” said, “Let them eat brioche,” she was actually referring to a social welfare program. There was a law that when a baker ran out of the cheaper bread, he was required to sell higher-priced bread for the lower price. If the bakers had no pain, then they were legally obligated to sell brioche for the lower price. Bakers responded to this mandate by shorting their stock of expensive breads, so they would not be forced to sell it below cost.
[1] Not Marie Antoinette, who was also known for her avid support of charity.
“Obviously, CEO skills have been improving at an amazing rate”
I meant that generally speaking, wages are dependant on skills. I agree that some people get paid way less than they’re worth relative to other people. It does strike me as irrational that people who bust their asses doing manufacturing can make less than someone who’s just sitting at their keyboard all day.
Well, the Economist feels that this public money should be in the form of “a bold expansion of tax credits:”
Coming to an office near you
I assume this bold expansion refers to state and local taxes?
Regarding the idea that service jobs will be eventually be taken over by robots:
http://www.ginandtacos.com/2014/01/13/roger-against-the-machine/
Not only is it considerably beyond the capabilities of current technology (and therefore moot in terms of the short- and medium-term implications of minimum wages), but also not very cost effective, particularly if one takes into account the cost of maintenance staff, which would necessarily be more expensive labor (unless we using robots for that too, and then, who repairs the repair-bots?) and the need for parts and all that.
Also, latecomer @ #49:
Consider Detroit’s Moo Cluck Moo, a fast-food restaurant which pays its employees $15/hour and is currently planning on expanding to additional locations.
“Business profit is only a concern for the small percentage of people who it actually goes to. Most of whom do little to earn it and don’t need any more of it.”
Your job is dependant on that profit so I wouldn’t be to dismissive of it. It’s about balancing the needs of labor with the need of a business to be profitable.
re latecomer@49:
In short: “Short term solutions aren’t good enough, so don’t do them! Long term solutions only!”
Ever consider short-term things *while* doing the long-term thing? So people can survive while undertaking your long-term solution? The two approaches are not mutually exclusive. Sounds similar to (in extremis), “Why spend time eating now, since we’re all gonna die eventually anyway?” ;-|
Any business can be profitable, especially if all the minimum wage jobs offer the same living wage. You can’t/won’t do basic math, and have failed the evidence test you are demand to produce to back your OPINION.
latecomer
Quite the contrary, actually; those profits are coming out of my pocket, and if the business owners think they can get more profit from firing me, they’ll do that in a heartbeat. Increased profit is directly antithetical to the needs of labor.
What need? It is perfectly possible to run a business without any profit at all; so long as income is equal to overhead, the business continues to operate.
Compare job opportunities in states with higher minimum wages (higher than the federal standard) to states next door and you will find no statistically significant loss of jobs in states that pay their low wage workers more. In essence, the experiment has been done. There is no reason not to raise the minimum wage.
http://www.uvm.edu/~vlrs/doc/min_wage.htm
http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/america.htm
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/01/13/3153521/rich-republican-minimum-wage-california/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/19/the-u-s-has-a-7-25-minimum-wage-australias-is-16-88/
…even now part of the unemployment problem is due to a mismatch between the jobs available and the skills of workers…
First, there is no shortage of able workers standing in line for just about all of the jobs that are currently available, so that kinda blows your “mismatch” theory to hell.
And second, there’s also been a bit of technological change that allows more and more work — and not just unskilled work either — to be done by machines and software. How is retraining supposed to help with that?
And how is retraining supposed to help with all the jobs that have been outsourced to China and India? They already have plenty of workers with the skill to do those jobs — that’s why all those jobs got outsourced there in the first place.
Following up on my comment at #60: for emphasis, “Card and Krueger actually found a positive correlation between a higher minimum wage and employment” Translation: raise the minimum wage and employment opportunities will increase, the job market will improve.
There are charts and more details at the link.
http://www.uvm.edu/~vlrs/doc/min_wage.htm
Once in a while, I get to educate someone on the small ways we can fight back. Yesterday, I was patiently waiting in a long line at the supermarket with a single item.
A guy waiting in the next line told me, “Sir, there is no one at one of the self-checkout lanes”.
I pointed to the front of the line I was in. “See the young lady up there at the cash register?”
He looked sort of quizzical. I said “That young lady needs a job. She has kids in our schools, she pays taxes, she buys things in the local businesses. That self-checkout machine and the seven others that are full are doing the jobs of eight of her friends. I have time to wait.”
He had his wife move the cart in line behind me, and we had a great talk while waiting our turn. I think he left with a better understanding of automation vs employment, and our own role in acting like sheep and accepting it.
In “Man without a Country” Kurt Vonnegut tells how he would take his manuscripts down to the Post Office, and stand in line to have them help him package and address them. His wife chided him, as he could have Fedex pick them up at his door. I love his quote —
“I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don’t let anybody tell you different.”
― Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without a Country
“I meant that generally speaking, wages are dependant on skills. I agree that some people get paid way less than they’re worth relative to other people. It does strike me as irrational that people who bust their asses doing manufacturing can make less than someone who’s just sitting at their keyboard all day.”
I sit at a keyboard all day but it does not mean I work any less hard than someone who works a physical job.
What strikes me are custodians. These jobs are typically treated as low wage menial jobs but they are required positions and I know many custodians who work hard every day. Why shouldn’t they have a living wage? Why do we have to let an economic system determine who ‘deserves’ to have a living wage and who does not?
Trust me. We can afford it.
FDR said in 1933 Inauguration, “…a host of unemployed citizens face the grim problem of existence, and an equally great number toil with little return. Only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the moment.
And yet our distress comes from no failure of substance. We are stricken by no plague of locusts. Compared with the perils which our forefathers conquered, because they believed and were not afraid, we have still much to be thankful for. Nature still offers her bounty and human efforts have multiplied it. Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply…”
latecomer @49
Dribble down economics didn’t work under Reagan and didn’t work under Bush Jr. Bush Sr. referred to them as “voodoo economics.” We’ve had tax cuts in place for 20 years. The 99% are still waiting for the stimulus to happen.
Yes, I’m sure tax cuts will be very helpful to people who are making next to nothing in the first place. Idiot.
I would prefer some other stimulus like tax cuts…
We had EIGHT YEARS of tax cuts, and look at where our economy ended up near the end of it. Been there, done that, didn’t work…got any other ideas?
We have plenty of experience proving that tax cuts don’t “stimulate” jack shit. Maybe you should back out of this debate until you’ve caught up on recent history.
“I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don’t let anybody tell you different.” ― Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without a Country
I always suspected Kurt Vonnegut was a damn commie trying to destroy our American way of life.
PS: Happy Birthday to Michelle Obama!
Latecomer: “Instead of increasing the minimum wage, I would prefer some other stimulus like tax cuts, increased unemployment benefits, or something similar.”
OK. Deep breath. Another. Now count to ten. Ok, better.
Uh, dude, does it not bother you that companies hire these people for less than peanuts, knowing they will not be able to live on what they are being paid and fully expecting them to go onto public assistance?
Does it not bother you that the system as it is currently structured robs young people of the ability to save while rewarding old farts like me who have income to invest in stocks?
Does it not bother you that the minimum wage, adjusted for inflation is not $0.32/hour in 1950’s dollars?
If you don’t have the ability to pay a living wage to an employee, then you don’t have an economically viable job to offer him or her. The reason the economy is starting to implode is fewer and fewer people can afford the goods and services necessary for them to simply live.
one of the things that I find most interesting about the discussions that concern how much money in wages workers should receive is it is always about the business and the needs of the workers are never addressed in fact workers or labor is often referred to in the abstract they are not part of the discussion. The workers are human beings just and just like all other human beings have needs and wants. They also have the ability to act in their own interests and do when they are ignored and abused as they themselves perceive it. It is may be wise to listen to what they are saying and make some rational compromises before they start acting
I wont be holding my breath waiting for any great change the status quo, wisdom has been very rare in recent times.
uncle frogy
Uncle Froggy, This is a relatively recent phenomenon. The post-depression, post-war business folks at least knew that they needed consumers to consume what they produced. The export-driven economy views workers as a “cost” not a customer. The customers are overseas–except once everyone starts playing that game, you have a race to the bottom–and that usually ends with a splat.
Shit, latecomer . You have no idea how shit works on the bottom floor of poverty do you?
You read like a smug asshole who, because of their own education, just assumes that’s the roadblock to getting out of poverty.
Prepare to have your world rocked.
I’ve been in and out of homeless shelters since I was 14. First, with my mother and later as an adult. Sure, there’s programs to help you get a job and save money. But, there’s that whole “IF” you get hired bit. And IF you make enough to support yourself and your family. IF you can find a job around your shelter area because the bus takes forever to get anywhere. Then there’s how long it takes to save money up. After that, if you still have your job and move out all it takes is one, little tiny thing to mess up and you’re screwed. Bus late too much? Fired. Kid gets sick? Fired. Where do you go? Back to the shelter because you barely make enough to survive with food stamps, let alone enough to put in savings.
What does it take to get out of poverty? A livable paying fucking wage is one. The big one because hey, who needs the money? The poor people. Who has enough? Businesses! The livable wage would put people in apartments, instead of shelters. It would mean they would buy groceries with their own money instead of food stamps. It means they could get dental care which pays the dentists. The clothes they could buy, which they desperately need goes to stores. Not to mention buying bus passes instead of needed state assistance to be able to get to work. Hey, they might even be able to spend it on some nice things once and a while which makes life bearable like a pizza and movie family night.
There’s all the other factors too. Sure, education is one. A big one, but not nearly the end all be all. No dental insurance, which isn’t covered by the state here, and you’re ability to get hired is shot. There’s the health issues because jumping through everyone’s hoops and the stress isn’t good for anyone. Plus dental problems can cause other heath problems. Plus your diet isn’t going to be any good whether you’re eating the shelters food or living off the microwave they allow in your room. There’s the fact if you get pregnant, you’re fucked because hey, you’re just an incubator and you don’t have the means to buy the right to control your body.
I mean the causes of poverty are known. We can fix it. Yes, we need to work on a bunch of things but no matter what you do, if you take out the livable minimum wage, you’ll only see minor changes to the poverty level. Do you know why? Because once you’re born in poverty, it’s damn near impossible to get out unless you get really, really lucky. A good education isn’t going to get you that far when you can only get a food service job – like most of the food service employees who have collage degrees.
I mean dear god, who doesn’t the livable wage help? Businesses? They are a shitty business if they can’t balance their budget and a livable wage shut them down. I’m sure they will be thankful for the wage increase when they are out pounding the pavement again. A livable wage means more customers and people who can spend more at your store, FFS.
You’ve swallowed too much of the Republican koolaid.
A_Ray:
I don’t imagine it bothers latecomer at all. Their attitude is one of pure idiocy, with the added bonus of classism stench. The sort of attitude that makes certain people hold their nose as they look down from a lofty height, gazing upon the servant class. Why on earth should servants make a living wage? What would they do with it, besides waste it on frivolities? Let them have a little money, yes. They have no need for living outside small quarters, and really, they shouldn’t be sleeping much, they should work! And be happy with a pittance, by god!
Well, if business NEEDS to give people inadequate pay in order to be profitable, then fuck business. It’s clearly something that’s not working well for society.
I hope you get caught and fired you lazy moocher
How are you, Caine, my dear? I’ve started to wonder how much of the current scramble to screw the workers might be attributable to the coming wave of retirees trying to desperately scrape together a sufficient nest egg to retire without having to dine on cat food on a daily basis. Yes, the CEOs and bankers are screwing everybody, but we have a lot of folks who will be living off of equities rather than wages in the very near future.
Iandunkles:
I suspect that you’re right– we’re pretty much in agreement. Start by offering a living wage, then radical reform from there. I’m still not convinced that everything will be automated in 20 years (robots in nursing homes? Come on), but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be restructuring all of our labor laws and tax codes.
Latecomer:
I tried to give you the benefit that maybe you were just thoughtlessly ignorant (the fact that you consistently contradicted yourself kind of convinced me of this), but it’s pretty clear to me that you have never been nor have you ever listened to someone who can’t make ends meet.
So take your probusiness bullshit and shove it. I am so sick of listening to asscandles like you.
I love Colbert and Stewart. But is there any way you can embed the videos without autoplay?
So… Mr Brooks first lays out a mechanism that is partially responsible for lack of mobility, endorses it, then says the problem is actually due to a lack of mobility? Fucking seriously?
It’s like saying “White people marry other white people and have white people, which is of course their perogative, and perfectly understandable from social factors. That isn’t our problem. The problem we need to focus on is racial mobility. Black people need to just ignore the white people way out there, put their nose to the grindstone, and work toward getting into the whites only country clubs. Because mobility.”
But I’m being disingenuous. That’s not what he means. We aren’t supposed to try to parse his stupid fucking pretend-thoughts, when we know perfectly well what his actual thoughts are. What he really means to say is “Why would you want to pick on the aristocracy? They aren’t like you. They aren’t even in the same category of life as you. Ignore them., and instead go after your neighbor who has nicer shoes than you. Because if you work really hard, and put your whole life into it, one day it might be you wearing the nice pair of shoes and your neighbor walking around in ratty Reeboks. “
A_Ray:
Quite well, I hope you are the same.
I’ve wondered about this too, as it seems actually being able to retire is something a lot of people aren’t going to be able to manage, and picking up 10 to 15 hours a week at walmart or McD’s isn’t going to help at all, given that it’s the new strategy to get out of paying a living wage and not providing benefits. It’s horrible on both ends, for young people starting out, and older people wishing to retire, with everyone in the middle constantly waiting for the other shoe to drop.
a_ray_in_dilbert_space @70
Henry Ford knew that if he didn’t pay his employees enough to buy his product then he’d go out of business. His contemporaries told him his wages were too high and his response was:
Caine,
A few years ago, I read that the average retirement savings for people over 50 was less than $50K. I estimate that to retire comfortably, one will need $1-2 million–and that will likely rise significantly due to inflation. The boomers have dug themselves a very deep hole, and they have the demographics to distort the government and the economy to sort of get them out of it at the expense of their children and grandchildren. With no pensions, the only way to get money quickly is the casino we call Wall Street, and that means taking money out of wages and putting it into profits so we can see the sorts of obscene equity gains we say last year. Expect to see more pressure to not tax capital gains and dividends, as well.
Of course, the demographic trend benefits those who are already wealthy, and they’ll sell before the whole house of cards collapses. We are cursed to live in interesting times.
Playonwords @29
If you would also like to be able to complain about Autoplay but unfortunately live in a monarchy like erm the French, have a quick read through these.
http://xtremisreaction.wordpress.com/tag/how-to-watch-the-colbert-report-in-the-uk/
http://xtremisreaction.wordpress.com/2013/01/05/how-to-watch-hulu-and-us-television-in-the-uk/
I have both work arounds running but I think the “hula” is all you really need.
PZ sorry if this isnt allowed, i dont think its illegal or anything but I’l understand if its deleted.
So, latecomer, do you typically try to make a better living by asking your boss to cut your earnings?
Because that’s exactly what you’re suggesting.
But, hey, give it a shot! Experiment! Try it for yourself. Ask for a 10% pay cut and see if meeting your financial obligations gets easier or harder.
A_Ray:
:shakes head: To be honest, I’m not sure we’ll be okay. Mister is 60, I’m 56, and we’re both working. I don’t have job security, I’m an artist. Mister will have a pension, but…well, you know. The moment he stops working, covering our health insurance alone is going to be nightmarish.