Will America recover?

[Incredulity 11,665]

3 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Don't worry, I'm sure all that money stolen from workers over the past forty years will begin trickling down any moment.

How about hanging out your shingle, creating a "certified B corp" and putting your money where your mouth is.

 

"stolen"  jesus christ.

[Brisketexan 105,095]

Modern production means,  modern materials, quicker fabrication thru technological advances (SEE: Computerization).
The skynet is coming, the issue is how are we going to deal with all the people left out of a work force because of automation ?
The gap is not good however, so how do you "share" that wealth without causing pricing pressures  ?
I'm all on board with a living wage for skilled tasks, but no friggin' way for jobs kids in HS can hold as part time jobs.

I agree with much of your post till the end. Millions of Americans USED TO be able to pay rent and go to a state school working a lower-wage job. Now they can’t. That is unsustainable.

I’m not saying that an HEB checker should be able to buy a Mercedes. I’m just suggesting that they should be able to pay for about the same things that they could pay for in 1980.

[Incredulity 11,665]

when do we get to the graph of college cost inflation?

[Brisketexan 105,095]

when do we get to the graph of college cost inflation?

We’ve all seen it.

And it goes beyond that. Compare the purchasing power in terms of rent, food, and utilities, of that HEB job in 1980 vs today. Purchasing power has taken a beating across the board (college tuition is the most disproportionate for sure).

[BabaYaga 15,290]

16 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Great point. Let’s agree, for the sake of argument. Now, account for the 20 years BEFORE Obama when we had the exact same trendline. Account for causation, and show your work.

We differentiating pre and post crash?  

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

27 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yeah build me a car, and I'll pay you skilled labor rates. Flip a burger and it's min. a wage job with incremental raises of $.50 - $.75 an hour. You want more money get more training, a better job or a new skilled labor education. THAT is all on the individual, with some educational tuition help from the gov't maybe .  We are not a nanny state (yet) and if we become one we're doomed.

I bet you got plenty of extra sauce in your day, didn't you?  When you have a bunch of employees that are at best, indifferent to, and at worst, hostile to their employer, you end up with a shitty business that customers hate, and employees that rob you blind and provide shitty service.

[Brisketexan 105,095]

We differentiating pre and post crash?  

Start at 1973. See the trend line.

[SmokeyTheBear 5,562]

18 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

this is so odd an unexplainable. lol 

 

https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/

And CEO to Worker pay graph for perspective 

 

[Fozzz 152]

12 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

How about hanging out your shingle, creating a "certified B corp" and putting your money where your mouth is.

 

"stolen"  jesus christ.

It will be music to my hears when your ilk whines about the massive "theft" of confiscatory tax rates upon their return.  The good old days are gonna come back.

Edited June 12, 2018 by Fozzz

[Incredulity 11,665]

2 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

It will be music to my hears when your ilk whines about the massive "theft" of confiscatory tax rates upon their return.  The good old days are gonna come back.

you do you, comrade.

[hayden_horn 11,362]

another corollary to this discussion, is what are we going to do with the workers who are replaced by automation? those mouths are still going to be hungry...

[Incredulity 11,665]

Euthanasia?

[Fozzz 152]

Probably have to do away with whatever vestiges of democracy remain for that to be an option.

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

24 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

I bet you got plenty of extra sauce in your day, didn't you?  When you have a bunch of employees that are at best, indifferent to, and at worst, hostile to their employer, you end up with a shitty business that customers hate, and employees that rob you blind and provide shitty service.

Yeah you just spewed a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with the topic, but you be you.

[BabaYaga 15,290]

22 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

when do we get to the graph of college cost inflation?

And yet everyone pays it.  How?  They're not paying cash.  At least very few are.  Or do you think it a coincidence that unrestricted access to financial aid and the subsequent skyrocketing of costs are not related?  Shit, in order to keep the CBO scoring as deficit neutral, the ACA rolled in student loans at a peachy little 6.8% fixed that was intended to rake in billions.

[Incredulity 11,665]

1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

And yet everyone pays it.  How?  They're not paying cash.  At least very few are.  Or do you think it a coincidence that unrestricted access to financial aid and the subsequent skyrocketing of costs are not related?  Shit, in order to keep the CBO scoring as deficit neutral, the ACA rolled in student loans at a peachy little 6.8% fixed that was intended to rake in billions.

No I think they are cause and effect.

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

35 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I agree with much of your post till the end. Millions of Americans USED TO be able to pay rent and go to a state school working a lower-wage job. Now they can’t. That is unsustainable.

I’m not saying that an HEB checker should be able to buy a Mercedes. I’m just suggesting that they should be able to pay for about the same things that they could pay for in 1980.

I agree it's a different day.  Maybe its making companies/ colleges reduce their costs/profit expectations ??

I'd like a double cheeseburger, fries and a coke.

Thank you, that'll be $20, pull thru please.

3/4 of Mc Donalds consumers have just been priced out of the market if we pay a living wage to people who flip pre cooked frozen hamburgers.

What constitutes a living wage ?  How does it not affect inflation ?  2 questions which I think need to be addressed.  And where does Soylent Green get factored into this cost equation ?

[Gardner Barnes 1,562]

Yeah you just spewed a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with the topic, but you be you.

Pot met kettle.

Except pot is the dumbest most beta motherfucker on Surly.

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

1 minute ago, Gardner Barnes said:

 

 

Pot met kettle.

Except pot is the dumbest most beta motherfucker on Surly.

 

 

Heeeeey fuck you too....... beta boy

 

Next topic please......

[BabaYaga 15,290]

11 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

another corollary to this discussion, is what are we going to do with the workers who are replaced by automation? those mouths are still going to be hungry...

The same thing we did with farriers, groomers, and tack makers when horses were replaced by the automobile.  Or longshoremen and dock workers displaced by the sea crate.  Or the advent of the internet and how that was going to crater millions upon millions of jobs.

Paradigms in industry change all the time.  Certain jobs are displaced.  And often a whole new sector is created.  Often, with an enormous net gain.

[BabaYaga 15,290]

3 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

No I think they are cause and effect.

My point exactly.  Same with medical costs.  The unintended consequences of the unrestricted access to capital (and a lack of price transparency).

[staboner 4,969]

17 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

another corollary to this discussion, is what are we going to do with the workers who are replaced by automation? those mouths are still going to be hungry...

i think we need to reinvent public good and public infrastructure

the universal income concepts really annoy me. 

take the universal income and find a way to create semi public companies that will improve our cities for the better. shitloads can be done

[Gardner Barnes 1,562]

Heeeeey fuck you too....... beta boy
 
Next topic please......

How many people told you what to do today?

Go get my coffee.

And get your shine box.


Beta.

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

4 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

The same thing we did with farriers, groomers, and tack makers when horses were replaced by the automobile.  Or longshoremen and dock workers displaced by the sea crate.  Or the advent of the internet and how that was going to crater millions upon millions of jobs.

Paradigms in industry change all the time.  Certain jobs are displaced.  And often a whole new sector is created.  Often, with an enormous net gain.

We're in a new advent of paradigm change in my opinion.  Automation and robotics are here, and they're only going to increase in numbers and skill levels.  

Maybe automation frees everyone up to just live and have fun  24/7.  Sarcastic a bit yeah, but who repairs the robots ?  more robots ?

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

5 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I agree it's a different day.  Maybe its making companies/ colleges reduce their costs/profit expectations ??

I'd like a double cheeseburger, fries and a coke.

Thank you, that'll be $20, pull thru please.

3/4 of Mc Donalds consumers have just been priced out of the market if we pay a living wage to people who flip pre cooked frozen hamburgers.

What constitutes a living wage ?  How does it not affect inflation ?  2 questions which I think need to be addressed.  And where does Soylent Green get factored into this cost equation ?

First, a living wage varies by location and should be tied to an index rather than being a nationwide set rate.

Second, I like how you jump to hyperbole and suggest that a wage increase is going to quadruple the cost of every meal.  You also ignore the fact that better wages decrease turnover, increase productivity, and decrease employee theft.

Third, McDonald's burgers are not precooked.  They are raw frozen patties.

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

4 minutes ago, Gardner Barnes said:

 

 

How many people told you what to do today?

Go get my coffee.

And get your shine box.


Beta.

 

 

Heeeeeeeeey fuck you again.........

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

First, a living wage varies by location and should be tied to an index rather than being a nationwide set rate.

Second, I like how you jump to hyperbole and suggest that a wage increase is going to quadruple the cost of every meal.  You also ignore the fact that better wages decrease turnover, increase productivity, and decrease employee theft.

Third, McDonald's burgers are not precooked.  They are raw frozen patties.

Says the head burger flipper............

[hayden_horn 11,362]

6 minutes ago, staboner said:

i think we need to reinvent public good and public infrastructure

the universal income concepts really annoy me. 

take the universal income and find a way to create semi public companies that will improve our cities for the better. shitloads can be done

i think this is a fantastic idea. civilian conservation corps, writ 21st century style. of course, in the end, that's taxpayer funded labor. 

so where's that money come from? it all points back to the haves, who better get with the program or eventually face a metaphorical financial guillotine.

[BabaYaga 15,290]

3 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Second, I like how you jump to hyperbole and suggest that a wage increase is going to quadruple the cost of every meal.  You also ignore the fact that better wages decrease turnover, increase productivity, and decrease employee theft.

Why don't you reconcile market labor costs (and then double them) for the fast food markets relative to employee theft, this hypothetical increase in productivity that may or may not happen, and turnover....and then get back with us.

[hayden_horn 11,362]

48 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

And CEO to Worker pay graph for perspective 

 

this is also a significant issue, and it's completely absurd. so much of executive pay is wrapped up in stock, that it skews the decision-making decidedly toward the short-term share price rather than the longer-term health of the company. i really think that tying executive pay to shares was a good idea in principle, but in action, it turns to shit. 

[Incredulity 11,665]

4 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

this is also a significant issue, and it's completely absurd. so much of executive pay is wrapped up in stock, that it skews the decision-making decidedly toward the short-term share price rather than the longer-term health of the company. i really think that tying executive pay to shares was a good idea in principle, but in action, it turns to shit. 

Big op-ed from Jamie Dimon and Buffett regarding public companies and managing to quarterly earning guidance in the WSJ.

[JBJ 3,654]

It's an economic problem - you can:

1) decrease the supply of labor, examples:

  a) Major: immigration reform, guest-worker program

  b) Minor: time off laws, overtime reform

Or

2) increase the demand for labor, examples:

  a) Major: low interest rates, mass infrastructure projects, protective trade policy

  b) Minor: emerging industry investment, targeted employment projects

[Brisketexan 105,095]

7 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

this is also a significant issue, and it's completely absurd. so much of executive pay is wrapped up in stock, that it skews the decision-making decidedly toward the short-term share price rather than the longer-term health of the company. i really think that tying executive pay to shares was a good idea in principle, but in action, it turns to shit. 

Listened to a good piece on NPR about how many of the better minds in finance are souring on the quarterly projections model -- it's silly, it skews the rewards towards short-term thinking, planning, and results.  Metaphorically, you sell your seed stock for the best results THIS quarter....and you'll figure out how to grow crops next year, well, next year.

EDIT -- and....Incredulity referenced the piece I was trying to mention.  It's worth a read/listen.

Edited June 12, 2018 by Brisketexan

[SKJ 1,311]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yeah build me a car, and I'll pay you skilled labor rates. Flip a burger and it's min. a wage job with incremental raises of $.50 - $.75 an hour. You want more money get more training, a better job or a new skilled labor education. THAT is all on the individual, with some educational tuition help from the gov't maybe .  We are not a nanny state (yet) and if we become one we're doomed.

Your model is the model that gets us to a nanny state. Don't you see?

 

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

another corollary to this discussion, is what are we going to do with the workers who are replaced by automation? those mouths are still going to be hungry...

The idea is that automation frees people up to be knowledge workers and "level up" their job. Companies are free to innovate (which is arguably the most important aspect of an economy, always moving forward and all that jazz), and people are free from the mundane, droll tasks that are repetitive, manual and soul-crushing (to hear them tell it). Further, automation creates a new class of professional-- automation experts, managers, users, consumers, and maintenance workers. Also, productivity/efficiency/compliance grows in step function as humans are super error-prone and inefficient. 

Long story short, I see automation as a good guy in the same way industrialization was a good guy and the same way that the assembly line was a good guy. Outside of it being a political issue for the short term, what are the arguments for it being bad again?

[Brisketexan 105,095]

2 minutes ago, JBJ said:

It's an economic problem - you can:

1) decrease the supply of labor, examples:

  a) Major: immigration reform, guest-worker program

  b) Minor: time off laws, overtime reform

Or

2) increase the demand for labor, examples:

  a) Major: low interest rates, mass infrastructure projects, protective trade policy

  b) Minor: emerging industry investment, targeted employment projects

I'd be curious to look at some simple math, showing me the following figures:

Total compensation dollars paid in the USA in a given year, and

Total profits distributed to shareholders/owners (that is, this is also compensation) in that year

Add those together, divide by total number of workers and owners.  Result is total earned dollars per worker on a flat average basis.

Then, compare it to past eras, and adjust to present value.

 

Because my HYPOTHESIS is that we still have effectively the same (or even more) in wages/earnings to be distributed among those receiving them.  E.g., if we had a flat average of $50k in 2018 wages/profit dollars for each earner in 1975, we still have close to that average now.  It's the DISTRIBUTION that has changed.

That's my hypothesis, but of course, the data will tell the tale.  I'm curious if that sort of data and breakdown exists?

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

11 minutes ago, SKJ said:

Your model is the model that gets us to a nanny state. Don't you see?

 

I hear what you're saying, but living wages for non skilled trades is not the answer. They are not intended to be peoples livelihood.

[JBJ 3,654]

14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I'd be curious to look at some simple math, showing me the following figures:

Total compensation dollars paid in the USA in a given year, and

Total profits distributed to shareholders/owners (that is, this is also compensation) in that year

Add those together, divide by total number of workers and owners.  Result is total earned dollars per worker on a flat average basis.

Then, compare it to past eras, and adjust to present value.

 

Because my HYPOTHESIS is that we still have effectively the same (or even more) in wages/earnings to be distributed among those receiving them.  E.g., if we had a flat average of $50k in 2018 wages/profit dollars for each earner in 1975, we still have close to that average now.  It's the DISTRIBUTION that has changed.

That's my hypothesis, but of course, the data will tell the tale.  I'm curious if that sort of data and breakdown exists?

That's basically what the productivity vs wage graph shows - that workers are earning a smaller chunk of what is produced.

The point of my post is that there's an economic reason behind it (a saturated labor market).  No policy maker seems to want to address the economics of it.

Edited June 12, 2018 by JBJ

[zork 629]

1 hour ago, Fozzz said:

this is so odd an unexplainable. lol 

 

https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/

overlay with this:

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-population-over-time

and this was/is a contributor as well:

http://www.pewresearch.org/ft_dual-income-households-1960-2012-2/

Wages are tied to skills and competition, number of available workers(or machine/productivity), for the jobs.

 

 

 

[Brisketexan 105,095]

2 minutes ago, JBJ said:

That's basically what the productivity vs wage graph shows - that workers are earning a smaller chunk of what is produced.

Thanks.  I genuinely don't know all the data inputs that go into the "productivity" number -- I mean, I PRESUMED that it was some/much of what I was talking about, but if we can talk about it in those clear terms -- that is, the following facts:

1) America is still producing enough value to pay wages/provide incomes to all workers that more closely reflect our "golden age" of prosperity (the 30 years or so postWWII).  In fact, we're producing MORE total value.

2) In spite of there being MORE of such pie to go around, the share of that value being paid to workers in terms of wages has gone down -- both in relative terms and absolutes (in terms of spending power).

3) an increasing percentage of our workers, doing the SAME work they were doing before, is unable to buy/pay for the basics that they once could.

These are problems.  It doesn't have to be about the haves getting more.  We can focus simply on the have-nots getting even less, in terms of buying power.  That's unsustainable.

 

[sheeeit 129]

Well this thread really went off on a tangent.  One of the biggest issues with these types of discussions is that people, on both sides, let emotion cloud their judgement and they replace reality with emotion.  The following are some real world examples of how things work.

There are very few absolutes but the following is one and no matter how much we might want it to be different it can never be different.  Unless we are willing to put caps on what businesses can charge for their services and combine that with closing all outside trade completely, the lowest skilled/earners will never make a living wage.  It is economically impossible in a capitalistic system.  Impossible.  

If we decide that today a living wage needs to be $15/hr then everyone in the system is going to get an effective raise.  Obviously if Widget company is currently paying someone $12/hr for one job and another $15/hr for another, then when the $12 guy gets bumped to $15 then the guy at $15 is going to get bumped to $18.  That is reality.

So when everyone gets a raise guess what happens?  The price of milk goes up.  Rent goes up. Pizza goes up.  Inflation is inevitable when wages are rising.  It does not happen overnight, but happens within 2-3 years.  So, in 2-3 years, the guys who needed $15/hr to make a living wage are no longer making a living wage and we are right back where we started from.  Some argue, ignorantly, that we should then have the living wage increase proportionately with inflation.  All this does is keep driving up costs for everyone in the system.  That is why I said earlier that unless we cap prices on goods AND eliminate imports the system will not work.  When the US keeps artificially (by artificially I mean govt mandating a higher than market wage) raising costs in our system we are, obviously, becoming less competitive on the global scale and business and jobs and wages will start to decrease.

The illustration to this point can be seen by using an outrageous example that is not really outrageous.  Why set the living wage at $15?  Why not make it $100?  Why not $1000?  The answer is because it doesn't matter.  No matter what we set it to, it will not be enough in a few years time due to inflation.

The solution to this problem is not easy but it is not overly difficult either.  There is an absolute role for the govt and our tax dollars to play in this.  There is zero question that people start out with different luck when born.  It is massively harder for the child of a single/low income parent to break out of the cycle.  That is just reality and  bitching about it or complaining about it or blaming someone else for it has never and will never do anyone any good other than making themselves feel better.  It isnt going to change the situation one bit.  The US is absolutely rich enough to provide assistance.  But, where most of us seem to differ is on how that assistance should be provided.

If we all agree that our various starting points in life are different and some have built in advantages, then the govt's role should be to provide services and avenues that allow the less fortunate to improve on their situations.  Th reality is that there are many, many such services and avenues available to lower income people but they are massively under used.  A few examples.  Lets say there is a single mom with 2 kids and support from the dad (i am going to make another post about this situation).  very, very hard for that mom to earn a living wage for her family without govt help.  So the govt should help.  That single mom, can have her kids at school and after school care or in daycare right now for free.  She can take nursing classes at a local community college or even online for the bulk of it and the govt will, and should, pay for it.  While taking the courses the govt will, and should, provide welfare for her and her family to keep them going.  They are not going to get to take a disney vacation, but they will be fed and housed and clothed.  if the single mom does this, in 2 years she can get a job earning more than double the living wage people talk about.  Starting nursing salaries are about $67K.  Virtually every medical entity will actually hire this mom before she completes her degree if she wants the job and pay her more than $15/hr.  The caveat is that she has to keep making progress on her degree.  But, in 2 short years she can change the trajectory of her family immensely.  

I realize that it sounds easy in theory but there is abundant anecdotal evidence that it is not only possible but actively happens everyday.  

Where I see the biggest need in all of this is making those in need aware of the services that are out there.  The govt should set up non-profits (or better let private businesses do the work for a commission) that serve no purpose except to educate people on the programs that are available and help walk them through all of the paper work and qualifications and everything else necessary to get approved.  I would make it completely separate from existing govt services.  Call it career enhancement agency.  But staff it with folks that know how to make the services work.  There are 1000s of programs out there right now.  There are tens of thousands of open jobs that pay well over a living wage that are available with a little training.  Education, welding, nursing, trucking, construction, plumbing, electrician, software, electronics, landscape, classroom, grants, loans, etc.  Spend govt money to market and advertise the facilities and what they provide.  Provide transportation vouchers to people coming in.  Make it so that no one can claim they were not aware of the facilites or that it was just too hard to get there.

And to complete the circle, while mom or dad is working to get ahead with a new career with lots and lots of help from the govt, then let the teenagers of these moms and dads work at the fast food places and similar for spending money.  Let them acquire the skills that people have mentioned on here before, responsibility, dealing with customers, limited accounting etc.  And let them get paid a minimum wage to do it.  Then they can transition to college and beyond or their own trade.

[Smax 3,800]

2 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

see how HEB treats its people. and that's in a shit margin business.

 

Thats the beauty of this country, don't like the way you're treated or paid at your current job, go work at costco

[Incredulity 11,665]

So, we are hankering to deal with the inflation monster.

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

Just now, Smax said:

 

Thats the beauty of this country, don't like the way you're treated or paid at your current job, go work at costco

Better yet, start your own company.

[Smax 3,800]

1 hour ago, hayden_horn said:

another corollary to this discussion, is what are we going to do with the workers who are replaced by automation? those mouths are still going to be hungry...

 

 

The same thing we did with scribes, carriage makers and the numerous other occupations who were made obsolete via technology

[staboner 4,969]

36 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Big op-ed from Jamie Dimon and Buffett regarding public companies and managing to quarterly earning guidance in the WSJ.

whats the gist of it?

[staboner 4,969]

56 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

i think this is a fantastic idea. civilian conservation corps, writ 21st century style. of course, in the end, that's taxpayer funded labor. 

so where's that money come from? it all points back to the haves, who better get with the program or eventually face a metaphorical financial guillotine.

lots of problems all intersecting here that can all be tackled simultaneoulsy

get utilities to manage infra projects. they know how and that helps them deal with declining revenues

get haves the ability to invest in new semi-public companies (in the same manner they safely invest in utilities now) and get guaranteed (but low) returns

get people back to work and learning real skills - improving transport, safety, lighting, green spaces, schools, churches, and much more. 

agreed with your sentiment. better get the haves (rich private) a way to get them caring about the public good before its too late and we repeat history like the dumb asses we are looking like more and more each day

Edited June 12, 2018 by staboner

[staboner 4,969]

18 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Well this thread really went off on a tangent.  One of the biggest issues with these types of discussions is that people, on both sides, let emotion cloud their judgement and they replace reality with emotion.  The following are some real world examples of how things work.

There are very few absolutes but the following is one and no matter how much we might want it to be different it can never be different.  Unless we are willing to put caps on what businesses can charge for their services and combine that with closing all outside trade completely, the lowest skilled/earners will never make a living wage.  It is economically impossible in a capitalistic system.  Impossible.  

If we decide that today a living wage needs to be $15/hr then everyone in the system is going to get an effective raise.  Obviously if Widget company is currently paying someone $12/hr for one job and another $15/hr for another, then when the $12 guy gets bumped to $15 then the guy at $15 is going to get bumped to $18.  That is reality.

So when everyone gets a raise guess what happens?  The price of milk goes up.  Rent goes up. Pizza goes up.  Inflation is inevitable when wages are rising.  It does not happen overnight, but happens within 2-3 years.  So, in 2-3 years, the guys who needed $15/hr to make a living wage are no longer making a living wage and we are right back where we started from.  Some argue, ignorantly, that we should then have the living wage increase proportionately with inflation.  All this does is keep driving up costs for everyone in the system.  That is why I said earlier that unless we cap prices on goods AND eliminate imports the system will not work.  When the US keeps artificially (by artificially I mean govt mandating a higher than market wage) raising costs in our system we are, obviously, becoming less competitive on the global scale and business and jobs and wages will start to decrease.

The illustration to this point can be seen by using an outrageous example that is not really outrageous.  Why set the living wage at $15?  Why not make it $100?  Why not $1000?  The answer is because it doesn't matter.  No matter what we set it to, it will not be enough in a few years time due to inflation.

The solution to this problem is not easy but it is not overly difficult either.  There is an absolute role for the govt and our tax dollars to play in this.  There is zero question that people start out with different luck when born.  It is massively harder for the child of a single/low income parent to break out of the cycle.  That is just reality and  bitching about it or complaining about it or blaming someone else for it has never and will never do anyone any good other than making themselves feel better.  It isnt going to change the situation one bit.  The US is absolutely rich enough to provide assistance.  But, where most of us seem to differ is on how that assistance should be provided.

If we all agree that our various starting points in life are different and some have built in advantages, then the govt's role should be to provide services and avenues that allow the less fortunate to improve on their situations.  Th reality is that there are many, many such services and avenues available to lower income people but they are massively under used.  A few examples.  Lets say there is a single mom with 2 kids and support from the dad (i am going to make another post about this situation).  very, very hard for that mom to earn a living wage for her family without govt help.  So the govt should help.  That single mom, can have her kids at school and after school care or in daycare right now for free.  She can take nursing classes at a local community college or even online for the bulk of it and the govt will, and should, pay for it.  While taking the courses the govt will, and should, provide welfare for her and her family to keep them going.  They are not going to get to take a disney vacation, but they will be fed and housed and clothed.  if the single mom does this, in 2 years she can get a job earning more than double the living wage people talk about.  Starting nursing salaries are about $67K.  Virtually every medical entity will actually hire this mom before she completes her degree if she wants the job and pay her more than $15/hr.  The caveat is that she has to keep making progress on her degree.  But, in 2 short years she can change the trajectory of her family immensely.  

I realize that it sounds easy in theory but there is abundant anecdotal evidence that it is not only possible but actively happens everyday.  

Where I see the biggest need in all of this is making those in need aware of the services that are out there.  The govt should set up non-profits (or better let private businesses do the work for a commission) that serve no purpose except to educate people on the programs that are available and help walk them through all of the paper work and qualifications and everything else necessary to get approved.  I would make it completely separate from existing govt services.  Call it career enhancement agency.  But staff it with folks that know how to make the services work.  There are 1000s of programs out there right now.  There are tens of thousands of open jobs that pay well over a living wage that are available with a little training.  Education, welding, nursing, trucking, construction, plumbing, electrician, software, electronics, landscape, classroom, grants, loans, etc.  Spend govt money to market and advertise the facilities and what they provide.  Provide transportation vouchers to people coming in.  Make it so that no one can claim they were not aware of the facilites or that it was just too hard to get there.

And to complete the circle, while mom or dad is working to get ahead with a new career with lots and lots of help from the govt, then let the teenagers of these moms and dads work at the fast food places and similar for spending money.  Let them acquire the skills that people have mentioned on here before, responsibility, dealing with customers, limited accounting etc.  And let them get paid a minimum wage to do it.  Then they can transition to college and beyond or their own trade.

one way to not have any emotion cloud your judgement is to not have a side in the first place

[BabaYaga 15,290]

11 minutes ago, staboner said:

whats the gist of it?

I"m going to assume it's gone the way some many of these have in the past - CEO incentive structures tied to stock price and other performance metrics.  It's akin to incentive's given to a CFB coach regarding yards-per-game and first downs.  They can pad the shit out of them, look great on paper.  And not win shit.  It's not hard to game EPS, PE ratios, etc. in the short-term.  Problem is, like P5 CFB coaches.  You pull from a tremendously narrow talent pool.  And as we're seeing, compensation escalation is compounding and tenure is fleeting.  Many of these guys, like Sanjiv Das @ Caliber Home Loans are brought it to do one thing (go public), then they are out.  Their not mercenaries, so much as hyper-specialized.  Some with M&A.  Some specialize in de-leveraging, some with IPO's, etc..  It's not so black and white.    

[Brisketexan 105,095]

8 minutes ago, staboner said:

one way to not have any emotion cloud your judgement is to not have a side in the first place

This.

I believe in free enterprise and profit.

I believe that it is society's benefit to have reasonable wages available to the bottom half of folks (remember, 50% of folks are of below median intelligence).  If you don't, the natives get restless.  Thus, I believe that NOT having that available is at society's peril.

I believe that some people have significant enough advantages or disadvantages that they are extremely likely to end up in a particular segment of the income bracket.  If you are born poor, to a single parent, with a shitty education, the odds are against you.  While some individuals can achieve, the odds are that the majority will need some sort of help beyond their family unit to achieve.

I believe that it is to society's benefit to ensure that people don't fall into the poverty trap with no way out - thus, I believe in a reasonable social safety net.

I believe in the dignity of work.  People are healthier, feel better about themselves, have more ambition, etc., when they can work for a living.  Key words are "work" and "a living."  Both need to be available.

 

If we can agree on some core principles, then we can talk about solutions that take all of them into account.  The extremes of "pull yourself up by your bootstraps, you're on your own!" and "the government owes everyone a basic income no matter what" are absurd, and should merit neither mention nor rebuttal.  Chuck those out, and let's look at the vast swath of options in the middle that satisfy these values.  If you have some other values that we need to consider, by all means, let's toss them in the mix -- I don't pretend that I know them all.