The myth of poverty

This is true.

The thing I always find funny about the minimum wage debates, however, is that it's kind of a moot point.

Most jobs that apply to minimum wage fit into at least one of the following categories:

1) temporary work for college students or high school students

2) jobs often filled by illegals (and therefore often paid less than minimum wage)

3) high turnover jobs that people only work before finding a more permanent job with better pay

The illegal labor aspect is especially relevant here, because obviously, enforcing labor laws to illegals is nigh impossible.

The best that can be done about that is to prosecute employers of illegals, but even most conservatives bristle at that thought -- probably because many of their constituents indulge in it.

 

Yes, while blaming illegal immigration on "liberals" and proposing a giant government project like building a border fence. How's that for supporting "limited government"?

 

Poverty is a myth? I must be imagining those impoverished people walking around my city every day.

 

The funny thing is, one of the few good ideas Bush had was reforming the visa system.

I wonder if the GOP might eventually gravitate toward that again with guys like Rubio rising in popularity.

 

It would be nice if it actually worked that away but the money has to come from someplace, and unless those who make the highest wages are going to take a pay cut to support higher wages for their underpaid employees, it simply means that prices/costs go up. And they just don't go up to support those wages, they go up on the products and services they provide, and on the materials and supplies they use to run their business.

But what about those people making $9 an hour or $10 an hour already? Does their wages increase as well? NO! And when the cost of every thing rises so does the poverty level, it has too, and now there are more people going to be included into those statistics, not less. How many times is this going to happen before it finally sinks in that the economy is being manipulated by these two criminal parties, and their cronies?

It also never fails that when the government imposes new minimum wages the major businesses take advantage and give their big wigs a raise in the process. Even the companies who do not have a large employee base of minimum wage employees, have to increase their costs so they fudge them even higher, since they can just blame it on the government, which doesn't get passed on to the employees either by the way. It goes directly into the pockets of management and the stockholders of the corporate entities large enough to take the hit, and their political sock puppets who make the pay raise possible.The workers wages will remain the same meaning they are going to actually be bringing in less money since the cost of living is inevitably going to rise due to the cause effect factor.

And what about the smaller businesses that are barely keeping their heads above water now? Oh they either lay people off and thrust that work on the remaining employees who are working twice as much for less financial stability. Or they take their business and move it out of the country, to support communism and dictatorships for their own profit margin. They become part of the problem, and become allies with our enemies, making the world a much dangerous place in the process. Or, and this is the main goal of the two party scam, they go out of business and the big dogs absorb their business, they have less competition and more control as they monopolize their industry. The first step at that point is to freeze wages or even lower them. Who is going to stop them if the market isn't allowed to dictate such things and capitalism isn't allowed to work the way it was intended too? Then they increase prices to the highest level possible, raising the cost of living in the process to accumulate "all" the profits they can possibly achieve, since there is no competitive environment or incentive, economic or otherwise, to keep prices lower.

Why do you think wages have been stagnated over the last few decades, while costs continue to increase, and profits for the few remaining corporate entities who can survive in such an environment of government manipulated economics is at an all time high in the first place?

Nope raising the minimum wage is just as big as a corporate scam (provided by the best government corporate money can buy) as the practice of over regulating the little guys (small business entities) while offering exemptions, or providing exclusive grants/loopholes to the chosen few top dogs (mega corporate entities who own our politicians on both sides of the aisle). It's just another angle of how cronyism capitalism works. Screw the public until they demand change and then make the necessary changes to support the chosen few, while the majority takes it up the ass yet once again.

 

Which only goes to show that the two party scam is not interested in actually controlling the flow of illegal trespassers into the country. Democrats want their vote, and republicans want their cheap labor, to increase their profit margin. In the mean time nobody in either party gives a (*)(*)(*)(*) about what is best for the country.

 

Actually, I think both of them, or more accurately their wealthy sponsors, like the cheap labor. I don't think enough illegals try to vote to make any difference in our elections.

 

Claiming that the rich create jobs is like saying that vampires create blood. That sucks!

 

Not yet, but the anchor babies do grow up and they have kids. But since there is no way of knowing how many use fake/illegal Id's to vote we may never know.

It doesn't matter a vote for either party at this point is a vote against the USA's ability to recover economically from decades of cronyism.

 

The champions still get the last pick in the draft. You're revealing a fatal flaw of the low-IQ Bizz Skule graduates by dismissing raw talent and the long-term benefits that could be attained by focusing on it. Just like your "Want it all and want it now" Greedhead idols, the rich teams are playing a hit or miss game by only paying attention to proven stars. Many free agents have hit their peak and will never pay off again.

 

Well, the reality is that the only reason these people come is for the jobs (or for the illegal drug trade).

A large portion of our agricultural sector depends on migrant labor -- whether legal or illegal -- because the work pays too little and involves such strenuous conditions that few Americans want to do it.

If our visa system properly handled our market's demands, then few people would be hired illegally.

That's where reforming the visas come in. I don't support giving citizenship to these people, but they should be able to work here legally.

This also ensures that these businesses and laborers pay the appropriate taxes and can be held accountable should any crimes occur.

The other thing we can do is end the War on Drugs. That would greatly weaken the cartels.

 

Extremely simple question here in reference to your statement...

Do wealthy people have employees in their companies?

The answer to this ought to clear up a few things, or confirm a mental obfuscation beyond repair.

 

If a country develop enough of its most talented, it will be able to get more work done in fewer hours. With our class-biased indentured servitude education, our talent pool has turned into a puddle.

 

The basis of the problem we're having is the view that the government, and not work, is the source of wealth.

I'm a seasoned citizen, grew up in the 1950s. Back then, Americans were willing to do field work. They were willing to do dull, hard, boring, factory work. I know, because I had those kinds of jobs myself, and I know that my coworkers were not illegal aliens.

Now, people who live off of the government can live better than those who take unskilled, difficult, dirty jobs. That's just wrong. We're teaching the youth not to have a work ethic, to expect to start a career at the top, and that it's OK to allow someone else to take care of you. There is no better feeling for a young person than to have money that they earned themselves and that they get to decide how to spend. (well, maybe that first love, but it's still a close call) Add to that a promotion and raise in pay that is earned by hard work, and you've established a lifelong work ethic that is sadly lacking in today's labor force.


The basic principle of pay for work needs to be that people who work for a living, even people who pick crops and make beds for a living, should have it better than those who don't work for a living.

But, alas, that's not how it is in 21st. century America.

 

So anybody who stands up like a man to these conceited rich parasites is only saying, "It's not fair that they can push people around and cheat them blind while I can't do that"? So if we don't want to be brown-nosing boytoys of the bosses we're just jealous?

 

I agree in certain ways, although I think the problem centers more around technology than work ethic. We're used to instant gratification. That breeds an impatient mindset that isn't conducive to hard work.

The fact that most Americans shun harsh field work isn't a bad thing per se, but we need to remind the public that some of the best paying jobs don't require a 4-year degree.

We have a shortage of technical talent in our labor pool that could be remedied by instituting the two track education system that Germany has.

If we respected technical trades more and stopped telling every parent that their kids should go the academic route regardless of their talents, then we'd have a more balanced workforce.

You'd also have fewer college graduates waiting tables.

 

A contract is just a piece of paper a real man would put his fist through. Only in a little boy's game does paper cover rock. No contract is valid unless it is negotiated under a balance of power. Without unions, the contest is Man against Millionaire. Jobs looked for elsewhere are run by the same Capitaliban parasites with their conceited attitude towards the workers who create all their wealth. A real free market, unlike the Capitaliban's fleece market, where the sheep get turned into wool and lamb chops by the Good Shepherds, would make unions mandatory in order to create valid contracts.

 

If that were true more of them would go home on the weekends and only remain isolated to the border states. No they come here to become citizens by proxy of their anchor babies and because they know even though they are here illegally our government will reward them not punish them.

True to a point but the catch 22 is as flyflicker stated. The welfare programs, established by the rich/elites, is a welfare for the rich program. They utilize the cheap labor while everybody else who works for a living pays to keep Americans from taking the jobs forcing the corporate farms from having to pay a realistic wage. This means record profits from fleecing the nation, and allowing illegals to provide them with the cheap labor. There used to be farms everywhere, but government manipulation and corporate lobbying has made it impossible for farmers to exist. The corporate farms dictate the price they will pay for crops and own the distribution companies that require local markets to only buy from them, to eliminate the competition for the corporate farming industry, which pays the lowest price for the crops they allow to be introduced into the system, and the highest rate possible for that product.

But if the government actually enforced the immigration laws on the books and went after the people who hire them as the organized criminals that they are, fewer people would be in the trafficking of human life and slave labor industry in the first place. That covers everybody from the corporate cronies who you and others give a pass too at the monment and those gated community dwellers who hire them for their domestic needs at an alarming rate.

No those jobs should be held by Americans to reduce the welfare roll, and introduce competition back into our economy at both the local and national levels. Capitalism is the only way to reintroduce competition into the cronyism economic system we are imposed with today.

There you go, protecting criminal activity, to help the mighty corporations and make it impossible for small businesses to exist/survive.

At least we do agree on one thing. Prohibition is the support mechanism for organized criminal activity. What ever the original problem is only gets worse when prohibition is imposed and black markets become relevant.

 

The waves a yacht makes capsize our rowboats. Or maybe I should say "capitalsize."

 

Those ruins are historical -- among the first archaeological ruins of the modern age. Detroit isn't the only modern ruin however. There are also urban ruins across the former Soviet Union -- empty cities beyond the ones that were abandoned after Chernobyl, and soon perhaps, if China continues to build empty cities, across China too.

Location and opportunity are what build cities.Those empty cities didn't have opportunities to begin with or lost them over time, so even luxury socialist paradise cities don't invite immigration without the jobs and money making potential to go with it.

Many people think that rural towns are the only places that can become ghost towns but no cities can also become ghost "towns."

 

Let the preppies work in the fields. Permanently. Whatever they tell us to do is what we should force them to do.

The Capitaliban know perfectly well the conditions they impose on the rest of us. If their heirhead brats were cut off from Daddy's Money at the age of 18 and had to live like real Americans, these economic extremist fundamentalists would change the way they make the rest of us live. If we have to do it on our own, so must the children of the rich. Then they'll quit teaching their one-sided theories in their madrassahs, and we will liberty and justice for all, not this libertine injustice they call a "free market."

 

A contract is an agreement between by 2 parties. A real man would uphold his part of the contract.

A contract is an agreement between 2 parties (see above) and does not have to be on a piece of paper.

A contract REPRESENTS a balance of power. Each party has something the other party wants. It doesn't matter how much money each party has.

Nonsense. A company values its good employees.

If a union were a required party to a contract then that contract may not be valid because one party (namely the employer) would be put under duress.

 

That 'puddle' is the result of central-government forcing wrong-headed curriculum onto young, impressionable children. Private schools turn out students with the most talent and educated backgrounds.

 

It's not about the increase in income but my point was questioning if a person would truly feel they are out of so-called poverty when earning $18K/year? I know that every extra dollar helps but in this case, as Obama touted, earning $18K/year is not happy trails again.

A business does not have the luxury of paying employees anything they wish. $18K/year IS NOT a living wage. $35K is closer to a living wage and it is impossible for business to pay this level of wages to employees with low to no skills. And the cost of wages goes directly to the retail price of products and services and this has limits!

Government makes decisions about it's citizens and this should have nothing to do with the private sector and employers. The private economy is a separate entity from government, played out in a global marketplace, stiff competition, based on supply and demand. The private economy is not responsible to create a minimum number of jobs, or pay a minimum amount of pay or living wage; their sole job is to identify demand and fill that demand while earning profits...

 

The majority of the reason why a lot of them don't go back is because of the little border security we have.

A few decades ago, border security was even more lax than it is today. In the 80s, it was actually easier to cross the border than it is now. Back then, what would typically happen is that seasonal migrant labor would come here during the growing season for farms, and then they'd go back to Mexico in the offseason. In the time in-between, money would be sent back to their families.

Having illegals stay here in the offseason has become more common because of the tightening of border security. The idea is that, if you can make it through one time, you don't want to go back, because you might not make it through again.

So, instead of just having young males come for work (like it was in the 80s), entire families cross the border. The anchor baby factor is less significant than the economic factors involved.

What has compounded this situation is the deteriorating state of the Mexican government. In the 80s, cartels were less of a problem than they are today. The 80s were actually the beginning of a lot of the rise of the cartels as America stepped up its drug war both with mandatory sentencing and with interventionism in Colombia, so by now, the cartels are big business.

Some of the disappearance of the small farmer is because of what you're talking about. On the other hand, another major factor is just economies of scale. Even without any government interference, a corporation can supply much more produce than a small farmer. Inherently, big business has an advantage in farming over small families.

So, while I would like to end farm subsidies and government meddling in this market, it's not going to change the trend of increased corporatization of the farming market.

Beyond that, what farms pay labor is what the market will bear. We do actually see benefits in having them hire migrant labor. Food is much cheaper here than it would be if American citizens worked these fields.

So, while the practice of illegally hiring people should stop, the solution is opening up visas -- not making it harder to hire migrant labor.

Wouldn't it make more sense to open up more visas for menial labor while better educating our citizens so that they can work better jobs?

It seems to me that our citizens should have the comparative advantage in skilled labor while migrants should have the advantage in menial labor.

Capitalism is actually opening up the visa system more. That's the premise of free market economics -- making it as free as possible for employers to hire who they want to.

Tightening visas and attempting to police every crossing of the border is actually less open in terms of economics -- and it leads to a much bigger government.

Too many Americans focus on trying to compete for lower wage jobs when they miss the fact that we shouldn't have to compete for them in the first place. The way a nation advances in standard of living is to educate its citizens well enough that they only compete for higher skilled work.

Immigration is largely aimed at filling the jobs no one wants.

Well, if we want to be bluntly honest here for a moment, the freer a market is, the less likely it is that a small business will survive against a large corporation. There are multiple ways in which competition dwindles, and one of the easiest ways is to buy out your competition.

If you're looking to protect small businesses more, capitalism isn't really going to give you much of a solution. Protectionism is more likely to protect small businesses, but the downside to that approach is that it limits consumers' choices more.

Cronyism in government surely kills plenty of small businesses, but in an open market, the small fish still tend to get squashed in a lot of industries.

More often than not, it's actually small businesses that hire illegal labor than big businesses. While the largest industry that hires illegals is dominated by big business (agriculture), most other economic sectors that hire illegals are relatively small businesses (like the food industry or small auto shops).

So, if you're aiming to end all migrant labor, that will hurt small businesses more than big business when looking at the economy as a whole.

Indeed.