SPLIT TOPIC: American society: the poor the unemployed

cool the kid

And I'm not sure why companies "owe" their employees a "living wage" or "affordable healthcare"

I throw those entitlements in quotes because there is so much that goes into them & what defines them, that it seems silly to throw those terms around so arbitrarily.

Plus there is a cause and effect relationship between the price of different types of labor that seems to elude you BG. You want a grocery store clerk to be guaranteed $50K a year (just for shits and giggles; for one person living alone or with a kid I'm not even sure that could qualify as living wage), then be prepared for $10 milk, $7 loaves of bread, $10/lb chicken breasts etc... directly impacting the bottom line of the very people you're looking to protect. And don't even bring up gov't subsidy; that merely amounts to the same thing. Letting the market naturally dictate the prices of goods and labor to a large degree balances things out more equitably than any person (as EVERYONE has a vested interest) could.

And on the healthcare side, there are all the issues of copay, deductibles and of course the health of the insured. Two people could have the same plan and one person could never spend a dime on healthcare, while the other person could be spending thousands every year, despite being insured. Short of signing into law that companies provide employees with prohibitively expensive "free" healthcare, there's no way for companies to provide healthcare that is universally affordable, without providing insurance that would put them out of business.

I think its good that people look out for the common man, but solutions have to be analyzed within the context of how the world works. Demanding "living wages" and "affordable healthcare" without showing an explanation or understanding of what these things mean both in the context of the employee AND the employer seems dubious; after all, without a profitable business structure there is NO employee or employer.

boygabriel

And I'm not sure why companies "owe" their employees a "living wage" or "affordable healthcare"

I throw those entitlements in quotes because there is so much that goes into them & what defines them, that it seems silly to throw those terms around so arbitrarily.

The fact that you think I used these terms arbitrarily says far more about you than it does about my argument.

For a singe parent to afford child care, health care, and groceries (as opposed to eating fast food), a compendium of studies (which I can find) found that you would need to make about $30,000 a year. Minimum wage is like $15,000/yr.

Minimum wage is not a living wage unless you have no kids, never have heath problems, never have transportation issues, can find affordable housing and are willing to eat fast food a lot.

So, there's your context. Not arbitrary at all.

domino

Cool the Kid said it much more eloquently than I ever could.

IMO the bottom line is that a person is free to either accept employment at the wage offered or continue to seek employment commensurate with their skills and needs elsewhere. The consumer is also free to shop at the big box store, mom & pop, bodega or Wal-Mart dependent upon their finances and needs.

I do not believe that the mom & pop stores could offer even minimum wage or any type of healthcare. In order to remain in operation on such slim profit margins they have to capitalize on available labor - be it child, illegal or whatever. Wal-Mart is vilified yet the mom & pop stores are supported?????

Minimum wage is a base line which is a national average - although minimum wage may very well be a living wage in many other parts of the country, unfortunately it is woefully inadequate here. Similar to social security for our elderly; there are many elderly citizens that are forced to subsist on less than $15,000 per year WITH health issues, transportation issues and are unable to eat fast food.

boygabriel

IMO the bottom line is that a person is free to either accept employment at the wage offered or continue to seek employment commensurate with their skills and needs elsewhere.

NO, you're not. That's precisely my point.

If you are broke, hungry, and have children at home, you have to take the first job you can get.

You don't have the luxury of waiting for a better job, or training for a better career.

Every day you don't work is another day your family doesn't eat, or you don't get medical treatment for some crippling condition.

Walmart doesn't get employees b/c they're offering good jobs. They get employees b/c people are desperate enough by the conditions created in this country.

whynot_31

BG,

Ideally we could offer training and support programs for those in the situations you describe. ...but, sadly, we never seem to get our act together and the desperate people (and situations) you describe continue to exist.

In the interim, are you proposing that we ban low wage employers and have the less skilled/desperate people try to get their needs met on public assistance (TANF, Food Stamps, etc)?

Because we have so many low wage employers, this isn't a question of merely getting rid of the one with the big "Price Dropper" smiley face.

Literally the entire entry level service industry pays low wages.

The advocate's of Living Wage disaster in developing a long vacant armory in the Bronx comes to mind.

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20091214/FREE/912149994

It was a protracted battle, but in the end: As a result of asking for too much, the folks they were advocating for got nothing.

This guy sums up the issue nicely:

By WILLIAM on 12/15/09 at 1:36 PM

Typical NY stupidity, let's not do anything. 300M in re-development is the Bronx would have been wonderful. These people fighting this thing don't even live in the Bronx, except maybe a few tokens. What a travesty that the city council votes no to business and the economy and yes to stupidity, just shows how truly out of touch that they are. This would have been a great project that would bring money spent in NJ, Westchester, and LI, back to NYC, jobs, which would have served someone. Granted it is nice that people have thoughts that retail clerks should be paid like investment bankers, but it does not economically compute, and in the end everyone needs to consider that a good solid investment in the Bronx is better than nothing...the black hole that sits there now....STUPID city council...

boygabriel

This is a multi-facted topic that has no clear answer.

Do *I* personally think the government should reorganize its priorities and provide more assistance in the form of housing, transportation, child care, training, food subsidies and health care in lieu of paying people unlivable wages so that they can buy cheap goods from the very store that doesn't pay them enough to live?

Yes, I do. Largely b/c simple employment numbers and private revenue shouldn't be essentially the only metric by which we judge value to the community. Yet, it largely is.

I'm aware of America's pathological rejection of all-things government (though funny that's mostly voiced by middle and upper class people) and how impractical my ideas are (though that doesn't make them invalid or not worthy of consideration).

That being the case, I'm not sure "lesser of two very evils" is acceptable here. Mom & Pop stores aren't some cure all either though. But do I begrudge local groups who are trying to fight our dysfunctional system which considers it progress to pay people unlivable wages?

No.

whynot_31

I don't think anyone begrudges the local groups that advocate for the poor.

The groups just annoy me at times when they can't see that they, even with government at their side, do not have enough power to change the lives of their constituents.

I guess it is the widespread public support for their movements that deludes them into thinking otherwise.

To me, their effort to fight Walmart's entry into NYC is a loser. As I've stated above, Walmart is going to come, whether we want it or not.

So far, no one has mentioned in this thread that Walmart wouldn't be able to pay wages and benefits as low as it does if its competition paid more.... Basically, it's villianized for buying a product (in this case labor) for the going rate.

Returning to the advocates:

On the positive side, it is these very groups that manage to implement the basic safeguards in our society concerning minimum wages and other working conditions. despite being under funded and often run by volunteers , they play a needed role in our society in that they not only point out when new legislation and protections are needed, but also point out when our EXISTING laws and regulations are not being effectively enforced.

Example:

http://www.maketheroad.org/

While I think the "Ban Walmart From NYC" battle is silly and misguided, I have been watching the recent effort to force NYC employers to provide sick time closely. To me, it seems like a worthwhile battle and I hope some form off the law is passed.

Predictably, the law is facing significant opposition from the business community, specifically the food and retail service industries.

It should be interesting to see whether the law is ever successfully implemented and enforced.

Here's a nice summary:

http://www.iwpr.org/blog/2009/09/new_york_citys_proposed_paid_s.html

This seems to state the legislation is currently stuck in the City Council:

http://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=655220&GUID=8FEF6526-0C00-45D5-BD0B-617353F90F06&Options=ID|Text|&Search=paid+sick

domino

BG claims that if you are broke, hungry, and have children at home, you have to take the first job you can get and unless you do so,your family won't eat or get medical treatment. Then why do so may minimum wage jobs go unfilled and/or filled by recent (even illegal) immigrants?

As for going hungry or unaided, don't our taxes (and the taxes of corporations) go towards SSI, WIC, S8, Medicaid and other support programs to protect those less fortunate from these desperate situations? Although the original concept for these programs was to provide temporary aid to those in need, the amount of time that assistance is needed as well as the number of people needing the assistance has grown. The funding for these support programs has not grown in proportion.

Banning low wage employers and having yet more less skilled/desperate people attempting to get their needs met via these programs would only further exacerbate the situation.

How should government provide more assistance? By increasing the tax burden on people who although not struggling now would certainly struggle under more onerous taxes? Or should government provide more assistance by increasing the tax base - by expanding corporate growth in the area and increased employment?

Mom & Pop stores certainly do not provide a liveable wage nor health benefits - and are mostly cash businesses. I sincerely doubt that they pay their fair share of taxes or contribute towards SS. The fact that Wal-Mart is a corporation subject to regulations (as well as public scrutiny) makes it a more viable option than yet another dollar store or mom & pop bodega.

boygabriel

Are you setting yourself up for the bootstraps speech? 'welfare queens'? the poor just need to work harder?

what are all these wonderful minimum wage jobs that go unfilled? According to a study cited in Nickle and Dimed someone on welfare has a 97 to 1 chance of getting employment. Getting a regular job isn't as easy as setting your alarm clock and pounding the pavement.

You reference our social welfare systems but they are barely enough to get people by. They aren't close to enough to give people enough breathing room to actually find livable wages, or train themselves for a better career, or anything of the sort. In fact they are comically inadequate for what they propose to do.

How should the govt provide more assistance? How about multibillion dollar bailouts for the poor? How about reducing the 20% of the federal budget that gets wasted on national defense. How about closing corporate tax loopholes. How about more tiered tax bracket that taxes the ultra-wealthy at much more logical rates (an extended discussion we had in another post).

The 'how' is a question I'm fully willing to debate. But this here conversations started off with the what and why.

Should this one Walmart store come to Brooklyn? Who the hell knows? Is Walmart and the American corporate top-down model good for our country?

No.

whynot_31

boygabriel wrote: Should this one Walmart store come to Brooklyn? Who the hell knows?

Is Walmart and the American corporate top-down model good for our country?

No.

Is globalization good for our world? Who knows.

Is globalization good for our nation? Who knows.

Is globalization good for Brooklyn? Who knows.

...but it is happening, and I fear it is likely to result in a "corporate top-down model" for the entire world as we relentlessly pursue the benefits of free trade and Pareto Efficiency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency

Can you, Boygabriel, stop it? (I can't)

Do you think you can muster up the support of the populous to try to make our government stop it? (I can't)

If you were able to get the government to bail out the poor, eliminate the 20% of the budget that is spent on defense, close the corporate tax loopholes and implement a system that progressively taxed the wealthy, do you think our government would be successful in stopping globalization? (I do not).

.....yes, it sucks to be poor.

it sucks to be poor in our world

it sucks to be poor in our nation

it sucks to be poor in our city.

As globalization progresses, it may SUCK EVEN MORE unless the gains from trade (cheaper products, food, etc) outweigh the costs (increases in unemployment, increases in skills required, etc).

krowonhill wrote: Would Walmart be good for Brooklyn?

Frankly, everything we've described in this thread will happen with or without it.

The same thing goes for burning things in the streets of Seattle at the WTO conference.

....globalization will happen whether you spend your day with 22 year old anarchists throwing firebombs at the police, or whether you use the day to do your laundry.

http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&source=imghp&biw=1680&bih=914&q=seattle+wto+riots&gbv=2&aq=1&aqi=g3&aql=&oq=seattle+wto&gs_rfai=

Personally, I choose to adapt as best I can and try force my government to help those who can't adapt.

....as you accurately point out, not everyone can "pull themselves up by their bootstraps".

whynot_31

Thread summary:

a. If you are a Mom and Pop store and you try compete directly with Walmart, you will be screwed.

b. Many Mom and Pop stores do not compete directly with Walmart, and they will be ok.

c. It sucks to be poor, and we live in a world/city/nation that does very little to make it suck less. It would be nice if we could change this.

d. Globalization has pros and cons

e. etc.

Next?

P.S. Life is still worth living. These are the challenges of our times.

cool the kid

I'm too drunk to think/post clearly but I just strongly disagree w/BG's stance

I understand & to a degree agree w/what BG wants for the country. But I am at a loss as to how the US could realistically make it happen w/o making the rich poor, or driving the cost of basic goods up well beyond what the avg American could afford, or increasing the tax burden on those who actually pay them well beyond sustainability & reason

Esp considering the ocllective federal & municipal govts fiscal crisis

Again I ask what BG feels the 'standard of living' should be for the avg American and how we can pay for it. Should every American have access to the lifestyles afforded to households earning 60K? 80K? 100K? 200K? How do you rationalize such an expensive + broad sweeping subsidy? And what about the people who make things work with less? What about all the poor people spending what little cash they have on CC debt, lotto tickets, alcohol, expensive hairdos yadda yadda/ BG how do you suppose more $$$$ will better their situation?

Increasing entitlement programs doesn't solve the problems of poverty; it temporarily ails the symptoms but it also deepens the underlying cause. I'm getting dizzy but tomrooorw...

water ice

I love that business and economic topics are popular on Brooklynian (a favorite of mine too, in case you haven't noticed). I'm no fan of Walmart, but can't see that their any worse than other businesses located in NYC. On exception is Costco (really a competitor of Sam's--a Walmart subsidiary). I seem to recall that they make an effort to pay a decent wage plus benefits. Very enlightened.

Walmart does do some things well. First, they bring lower costs, which raises living standards for shoppers. Second, they give work experience to many who need it (yes, I know, it's not like these are highly skilled jobs, but nonetheless, it's better than no experience for many). Third (and this was chronicled in The Atlantic), they are at the forefront of bringing local and fresh produce to markets. The implications for this last item are huge. Giving a large market to generate some scale for local farmers is a big deal. Allows lower average costs and maximizes nutritional benefits for many.

And Walmart's advantage is based on more than just low wages. They have a vastly superior distribution network that is probably the world's best (Amazon also has an impressive logistics system). This was demonstrated when, during Hurricane Katrina, they were able to deliver emergency provisions when the gov't was not. Again, I'm not defending their poor reputation, which is partly deserved, but we don't exactly drive out other local businesses who are proven bad actors, do we?

boygabriel

Thread summary:

a. If you are a Mom and Pop store and you try compete directly with Walmart, you will be screwed.

b. Many Mom and Pop stores do not compete directly with Walmart, and they will be ok.

c. It sucks to be poor, and we live in a world/city/nation that does very little to make it suck less. It would be nice if we could change this.

d. Globalization has pros and cons

e. etc.

Next?

P.S. Life is still worth living. These are the challenges of our times.

And I come around here to discuss these things. It's worthwhile for me.

As for CTK's slew of questions, I'm happy to discuss specifics. But those questions aren't a rebuttal to my points.

(that minimum wage is too low, social services are inadequate, and that our country is simply not doing enough to create decent opportunities and pay for our poorest 40-50%. (~25% of America is paid hourly, another 10-20% is unemployed.))

cool the kid

Minimum wage is too low- again I ask, what should minimum wage be in your opinion BG, and how should the raise be paid for? Should minimum wage be state specific? It's definitely reasonable in other parts of the country. Plus I'm not sure why the gov't should take responsibility for people's decisions (i.e. having kids while making $20K/yr).

Country is not doing enough to create decent opportunities for the poor- the country doesn't have enough opportunity for ~10% of the working population; I am unsure of where these opportunities for the least skilled portion of the population are to come from (thoughts on this to come)

Country is not paying enough for the poorest 40-50%- BG, you do realize the poorest 40-50% pay little to no income tax and utilize the most of the govt's resources + programs? This comes back to my basic question- what more aid should the gov't provide to the poor, and as a follow up, given the country's fiscal status why should that be a priority?

Also the idea that the gov't arbitrarily "pay for the poor" bothers me. Do you realize there are poor people who have made multigenerational legacies of living on the government dole? What about arbitrarily throwing more money at the poor solves the underlying problem of the cycles of poverty? How does that help them (or the country) in the long term?

TBH I would have no problem with more $$$ being given to the poor through the form of public works programs. Much of our infrastructure is long overdue for O&M work and private contractors simply cost too much for our gov't to use them to get things back up to 100%. Why not train + utilize the labor pool of the poor? That way at least they gain some marketable skills & contribute. There are similar forms of work in various fields, not all necessarily involving physical labor. Obviously there are some poor people who simply can't work- which is fine; I think welfare programs are meant more for them. But the idea that all poor people are complete victims of society & wholly unable to support themselves is self-destructive for all parties. The country needs to move away from the idea of unwarranted entitlement to gov't programs, from corporations to individuals.

whynot_31

I would quadruple the number of publicly subsidized community colleges.

...but are we still talking about Walmart?

witch-king

Non!

cool the kid

whynot I don't know that more college is the answer. I think it might be time for CUNY to consider opening up some trade schools too

whynot_31

CTK, Yes I would offer tech classes at my thousands of community colleges.

....tech jobs pay way better than Walmart.

boygabriel

CTK it's hard for me to discuss this if you're going to constantly resort to framing this in simplistic binary terms as if I'm arguing that the poor should get a free ride and that I don't think they should work.

Also the idea that the gov't arbitrarily "pay for the poor" bothers me.

really? come on dude.

cool the kid

Well BG when you say one of your focal points is that

our country is simply not doing enough to create decent opportunities and pay for our poorest 40-50%.

And I ask pretty pointed/specific questions that go unanswered

Again I ask what BG feels the 'standard of living' should be for the avg American and how we can pay for it. Should every American have access to the lifestyles afforded to households earning 60K? 80K? 100K? 200K? How do you rationalize such an expensive + broad sweeping subsidy? And what about the people who make things work with less? What about all the poor people spending what little cash they have on CC debt, lotto tickets, alcohol, expensive hairdos yadda yadda/ BG how do you suppose more $$$$ will better their situation?

I have to resort to making assumptions

You want to ramp up all these efforts to help the poor, but in my opinion + from my experience you don't seem like you want to discuss specifics on why you feel the country's efforts are unreasonable or how you think the country could actually make things happen. Nor do you seem to show an appreciation of the context these programs would have to occur in.

Unemployment is at its highest point in the last 30 years- people will skills & experience have been out of work for months

Markets & investments are somewhat weak

Property values are way down

Entitlement programs are damn near at their limit w/all the newly unemployed people leaning on them

Tax revenues are lower and the deficit is growing, doubly killing any available money to expand programs

Fiscally, the U.S. should be scaling back everywhere it can, INCLUDING entitlement programs, not expanding. To date I don't think you've stated why you believe otherwise, other than that "its just what you believe", or something to that effect. I respect & understand your agenda, but I just don't see why it has to be a priority at this point in American history

What do you want for the US

How can we make it happen in these times while still meeting our fiscal obligations

If it should happen regardless of us meeting our obligations, how do you justify such prioritization

That's all I really want to know

boygabriel

Are you asking how I would restructure American values and priorities so that, for example, minimum wage is high enough that a single parent can have decent health care and afford child care?

I'm more than happy to answer.

whynot_31

Will your answers take the following statement into account?

"globalization will happen whether you spend your day with 22 year old anarchists throwing firebombs at the police, or whether you use the day to do your laundry."

Or, do you dispute the statement's truth?

....or, are you stating that we can simultaneously improve the life of the poor while incurring the effects of globalization?

If you have a way to achieve that last one, you have my undivided attention.

cool the kid

Are you asking how I would restructure American values and priorities so that, for example, minimum wage is high enough that a single parent can have decent health care and afford child care?

I'm more than happy to answer.

I don't know if I agree with this approach (i.e. BG telling me what I should feel should be American priorities) but I'll bite. I was really hoping more for an answer to the questions of where the system is lacking, why you feel it's lacking, what you think should be done, and my favorite question... how you propose to pay for the fixes.

Also I'm curious as to why the gov't should be on the hook for the choices people make. If you make 20K/yr and decide to have a kid... couple of things. One you already basically pay no taxes, and w/the kid deduction prob drop to a zero tax liability, on top of all the low income housing & other gov't programs you have access to. But even still, at the end of the day that's a choice you make. Why should the rest of the country bear that financial responsibility? Those are the kinds of specific instances I'm curious to hear your opinion on, as everything I've read from you seems pretty vague.

booklaw

The rest of the country should bear that responsibility, unfair though it be, because we are too concerned for the welfare of children to let them starve just because their parents may be irresponsible.

stacey

Also CTK remember there are single parents out there who lose their husbands/wives, or are battered women/men. There are families that lose their jobs and have nothing so for these people I do think that the government should help them until they can get on their feet again.

cool the kid

O yea stacey, things happen and I have no prob with helping people who are victims of circumstance

But that's different

whynot_31

sorting those truly worthy and in need of assistance, from those merely malingering is no small task.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/malingering

You have my undivided attention if you have figured out a way to do that.

natty

[/The rest of the country should bear that responsibility, unfair though it be, because we are too concerned for the welfare of children to let them starve just because their parents may be irresponsible. ]

---This

[....or, are you stating that we can simultaneously improve the life of the poor while incurring the effects of globalization? ]

I would argue that by giving the poor a better shake, the US will be in a much better place to compete and stay on top in this era of globalization. Social mobility has set our country apart. Now with the distance between rich and poor growing astronomically, social mobility is disappearing. You have to be really great and have everything go right to climb out of poverty. Alternately, you have to be a huge douche and have everything go wrong to fall from the upper class. The obstacles for letting talent rise (and shit sink) are getting to be way too strong

whynot_31

I like natty the newbie.

...welcome.

cool the kid

People always complain about the wealth gap...

Yes, the rich are getting richer. But are the poor really getting poorer? Is the middle class disappearing? What role does consumer debt play in all this? I don't think it's as simple as an upward wealth flow; there are a lot of other factors- many of which are voluntary- that are at play in the flows of money.

I wholly agree though that a mobilized + self sufficient poor class is much better for the country than otherwise, and efforts to help the poor should be made in that vein...