70% of Food Stamps/Medicaid recipients work full time, new study GAO And more results

[JohnBrown1917]

Yes prices would go down but your failing to understand the key dynamic here. It is laborer who sets the worth of their labor not the company. You reversed the relationship.

Wages haven't increased because the value of unskilled labor hasn't increased in value.

- - - Updated - - -



Can you point me to a successful anarcho communist society of more then 10,000 people with comparable living conditions?

Yes making everyone poor and starving lowers wealth inequality but I wouldn't push for it.

The human race always has room for advancement, a shame you can't see that.

[Saltysquidoon]

I mean it clearly is the case I set my own wage and argue for it. If my employer doesn't want to pay it I simply go work for one that will. This is how every employment situation works. You decide your worth not the company.

I mean at this point we're just pulling from the list of generic Reaganomics arguments, you're not even bothering to sand off the serial numbers anymore.

[kamuimac]

Dude what?

The only reason shit jobs are paid shit is because many people have no choice but to take them. Employers are in a position of power that does not allow laborers to set their worth.

Let's assume for a minute (and please don't immediately block with the usual "who's gonna pay for it" nonsense), assume for a minute Universal Basic Income exists. UBI meaning basic needs like shelter and food covered.

Now imagine if everyone could look at a shit job and be able to decline doing it. I guarantee you that wages will raise to a point where people will again do these jobs, because they want a bit more than their basic needs covered.

and why do they have "no choice but to take them"

is it maybe because they have 0 skills and are not wanted anywhere ?

its as simple as - "Any skilled worker can do any jobs that doesnt require skills - but people who dont have any skill simply cannot do jobs that require having them "

i can for example go and dig a ditch with a showel anytime i would want to - but person who only knows how to dig a ditch with a showel cannot do my job because it would end in disaster for company

lesson is - learn skills that are valued by society

- - - Updated - - -

I mean at this point we're just pulling from the list of generic Reaganomics arguments, you're not even bothering to sand off the serial numbers anymore.

he is not wrong though

and the reason he can have this view on world is most likely because he learned/practice hard to be where he is now. instead being lazy like people who cant land a decent job.

ddo you remember how back in 50-60s jobs in fast food restaurants were done mostly by high schoolers / college kids ?

now you have 40-60 year olds doing them - imagine working for 40 years and not learning even 1 valued by society skill to have to work there. depressing

[Saltysquidoon]

he is not wrong though

and the reason he can have this view on world is most likely because he learned/practice hard to be where he is now. instead being lazy like people who cant land a decent job.

He is literally wrong though.
At my old firm, I know for a fact every single person was on one of three different (one for support staff, one for the junior associates, one for the SAs) salary packages (modified by legislative loading), there was no negotiation. My wife's remuneration is based on an academic collective bargaining agreement which was negotiated before she even worked there. All teachers/soldiers/social servants in Australia have a similar system or predetermined remuneration based on tiers of experience, etc.

I don't know what 1940s neoliberal LARP land you live in where remuneration is decided by sliding paper back and forth over brandy and cigars but here in 2021 salary negotiation is essentially a dead meme.

[Easo]

statements like this show that you have never in your life worked in any type of leadership position .

its kinda sad when people who have no clue what they are talking about spread bs views.

you have also logical flaw in your reasoning - if everyone can be a boss - then technically people who "do thoe basic dirty work " can be their own bosses too - its so easy according to you - yet they choose not to for some strange reason .

And your statement shows nothing about which I talked. Congratulations.
How the hell did you understand that I said "everyone can be a boss"? I very clearly said that not everyone can, be cause someone has to do the basic work. It literally is that - everyone cannot be managers or company owners. It is just impossible.
Get a grip, please.

[Krakan]

The human race always has room for advancement, a shame you can't see that.

I do I am simply wary of putting all my eggs in one basket. We have a bad track record with ideologies that attempted to end poverty I would argue there isn't really an example where it ended well

At the end of the day a society where you earn what your worth has a far,far higher standard of living then a society that tries to force equality of outcomes for its citizens.

I can agree to opening up education for those with potential to learn a useful skill but there would need to be some kind of test for aptitude as well.

- - - Updated - - -

and why do they have "no choice but to take them"

is it maybe because they have 0 skills and are not wanted anywhere ?

its as simple as - "Any skilled worker can do any jobs that doesnt require skills - but people who dont have any skill simply cannot do jobs that require having them "

i can for example go and dig a ditch with a showel anytime i would want to - but person who only knows how to dig a ditch with a showel cannot do my job because it would end in disaster for company

lesson is - learn skills that are valued by society

- - - Updated - - -



he is not wrong though

and the reason he can have this view on world is most likely because he learned/practice hard to be where he is now. instead being lazy like people who cant land a decent job.

ddo you remember how back in 50-60s jobs in fast food restaurants were done mostly by high schoolers / college kids ?

now you have 40-60 year olds doing them - imagine working for 40 years and not learning even 1 valued by society skill to have to work there. depressing

I feel this is a rather unfair outlook. There are people who simply lack the ability to master a skill. I've seen rather devastating outcomes for people who clearly tried much harder to succeed then I did but simply lacked the aptitude to master what came easily to me.

Society must be cold to a certain extent but anyone willing to work deserves at the very least respect. Not all of them are lazy.

While I believe simply handing them a higher wage would be folly I am a firm believer in providing them a basic level of shelter and necessities supplied by the government allowing them to use their meager wages as they see fit.

[Endus]

I think most of this stems from people being intellectually dishonest with themselves.

You will always have a bottom rung of society and no amount of legislation will correct that.

Everyone knows this.

We just think that "bottom rung" should be above the level of human suffering and hardship. It's really not that fucking complicated.

If you raise wages rent and necessities will raise at a near equal pace as the availability of resources remain unchanged.

Not only is this not true in practice, it's mathematically impossible for it to be true, unless you introduce some additional factor, like profiteering by greedy capitalists. In which case, it isn't the wage raise that's the contributing factor, obviously; it's that additional factor.

Literally not mathematically possible for prices to rise at an equal pace with wages. Stop presenting fantastical impossibilities as if they're anywhere close to reality.

People always talk about taxing the rich as though it was some bizzare magical bullet while always excluding themselves from any negatives such a drastic change would have.

There aren't any real negatives.

"Oh no, they might move their accounts to the Caymans". They've already done that. You can tax profits made within a country's marketplace, and tax them again when they move those funds outside the country. The Waltons can't just move to the Caymans and suddenly pay zero taxes on Wal-Mart's revenues.

It just comes off as naive and hallow to me. A worker sells his labor he alone decides what he will charge for it not a corporation.

This is just a lie.

Take a look at basically any entry-level job offer. You'll see that it has a wage offer attached. That's the wage you're offered by the corporation. They decided what to pay you. You didn't come up with that figure. And you can't even negotiate, because they've got 30 other candidates who'll take that offer as-is.

And why would they? Because the alternative is suffering. Risking homelessness and food insecurity and lack of health coverage and so forth. In any other circumstance, we'd call those factors "duress", and any decision made under such duress can't be considered to have been made with your proper free consent. Employment is one of the only cases where we still allow and encourage such duress to be exploited, for the benefit of the already-wealthy.

[Krakan]

Everyone knows this.

We just think that "bottom rung" should be above the level of human suffering and hardship. It's really not that fucking complicated.



Not only is this not true in practice, it's mathematically impossible for it to be true, unless you introduce some additional factor, like profiteering by greedy capitalists. In which case, it isn't the wage raise that's the contributing factor, obviously; it's that additional factor.

Literally not mathematically possible for prices to rise at an equal pace with wages. Stop presenting fantastical impossibilities as if they're anywhere close to reality.



There aren't any real negatives.

"Oh no, they might move their accounts to the Caymans". They've already done that. You can tax profits made within a country's marketplace, and tax them again when they move those funds outside the country. The Waltons can't just move to the Caymans and suddenly pay zero taxes on Wal-Mart's revenues.



This is just a lie.

Take a look at basically any entry-level job offer. You'll see that it has a wage offer attached. That's the wage you're offered by the corporation. They decided what to pay you. You didn't come up with that figure. And you can't even negotiate, because they've got 30 other candidates who'll take that offer as-is.

And why would they? Because the alternative is suffering. Risking homelessness and food insecurity and lack of health coverage and so forth. In any other circumstance, we'd call those factors "duress", and any decision made under such duress can't be considered to have been made with your proper free consent. Employment is one of the only cases where we still allow and encourage such duress to be exploited, for the benefit of the already-wealthy.

Few things here. I don't like the bullet point form myself so will address the nature of your counter points. Not everything would raise in price mostly rent and housing as the demand would far outstrip the supply. In time everything else would go up but those would be the first and most drastic.

All laborers sell their wages. They are under no obligation to accept or even answer a employment offer. Nor can they blame the companies for going with whoever sells their labor the cheapest. With globalization this includes the entire world's labor pool though local do have the advantage of not requiring shipping costs.

As for taxing the rich there are a lot of subtleties to that argument that is a topic all onto itself. Depends on degrees. I don't believe the rich would stand to support the entire working poor class.

[Endus]

Few things here. I don't like the bullet point form myself so will address the nature of your counter points. Not everything would raise in price mostly rent and housing as the demand would far outstrip the supply. In time everything else would go up but those would be the first and most drastic.

There is no such evidence. At best, it's a fairly minimal increase, and certainly isn't on par with the wage increase. The increase likely stems more from people upscaling their living conditions than anything else.

https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/94238.html

And no; it's literally not mathematically possible for an increase in wages to lead to an equal increase in prices. Literally not possible. It's like trying to argue that you can lift yourself off the ground if you pull on your shoelaces hard enough.

You're pushing fantasies that are not rooted in reality.

All laborers sell their wages. They are under no obligation to accept or even answer a employment offer. Nor can they blame the companies for going with whoever sells their labor the cheapest. With globalization this includes the entire world's labor pool though local do have the advantage of not requiring shipping costs.

Ignoring what I said doesn't constitute an argument.

Not taking a job when you're already poor means you suffer hardship.
Hardship is duress.
Thus, any time you take a job to avoid suffering that hardship, you make that choice under duress. It is not a free and open choice.

The labor market is not a free market, and all the power in that market lies with employers. Unless we institute a basic income system, where "not working by choice" becomes a valid hardship-free option, that will remain the case.

As for taxing the rich there are a lot of subtleties to that argument that is a topic all onto itself. Depends on degrees. I don't believe the rich would stand to support the entire working poor class.

And? They'll whine. And then they'll pay the taxes, and suck it up. They really don't have any other options, other than shutting down their company completely, and that just frees up the capital and the marketplace for someone else to take over.

[Adio]

It looks like a family of four is eligible for SNAP in my state up to ~$52K. For a single individual, it's ~$25K.

In everyone's ideal society, what percentage of people that work 35-40 hours/week should make more than that? Likewise, what's the right percentage of people that work ~35-40 hours per week, but don't work year round?

I use to be a SNAP worker last year, and the income limit for a household size of 1 was something like 1340 gross. A household size of 4 was something like $2700 gross income. Granted I worked in a midwest state.

I just looked up the guidelines now, which I think is nationwide.
https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/recipient/eligibility

It's only like $50 more now then it was last year. So I don't know where $52,000 is the income limit for a household size of 4 is.

[Krakan]

There is no such evidence. At best, it's a fairly minimal increase, and certainly isn't on par with the wage increase. The increase likely stems more from people upscaling their living conditions than anything else.

https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/94238.html

And no; it's literally not mathematically possible for an increase in wages to lead to an equal increase in prices. Literally not possible. It's like trying to argue that you can lift yourself off the ground if you pull on your shoelaces hard enough.

You're pushing fantasies that are not rooted in reality.



Ignoring what I said doesn't constitute an argument.

Not taking a job when you're already poor means you suffer hardship.
Hardship is duress.
Thus, any time you take a job to avoid suffering that hardship, you make that choice under duress. It is not a free and open choice.

The labor market is not a free market, and all the power in that market lies with employers. Unless we institute a basic income system, where "not working by choice" becomes a valid hardship-free option, that will remain the case.



And? They'll whine. And then they'll pay the taxes, and suck it up. They really don't have any other options, other than shutting down their company completely, and that just frees up the capital and the marketplace for someone else to take over.

I think we fundamentally disagree on the nature of man. While I admit your proposition is far more enticing I can't actually see it playing out in the real world well much like communism. It relies on a positive and selfless human nature I don't think is as common as you believe it to be.

I look at the actual examples of experiments with living wages and in most cases landlords end up eating up the extra wage.

[Endus]

I think we fundamentally disagree on the nature of man.

That's a semantically meaningless phrase.

I'm sticking to observable facts, and you're getting annoyed that I won't give your counterfactual flights of fancy and delirium equal consideration.

Because of course I won't; your claims are nonsense and don't hold up to scrutiny. You're not describing reality.

While I admit your proposition is far more enticing I can't actually see it playing out in the real world well much like communism. It relies on a positive and selfless human nature I don't think is as common as you believe it to be.

Literally nothing I said proposed any such view of human nature. What I'm describing is observable fact, in how human populations have actually reacted to changes.

Oh, and basic grade-school mathematics, which your claims also violate.

I look at the actual examples of experiments with living wages and in most cases landlords end up eating up the extra wage.

You have cited fuck-all evidence, dude. Don't claim that you're basing it on some such evidence, when you've provided none.

At best, you're arguing that landlords might just decide to increase rents because they're exploitative bastards. And then trying to blame that rent increase on the wage increases, not the greed of landlords. Which is a lie.

[Krakan]

That's a semantically meaningless phrase.

I'm sticking to observable facts, and you're getting annoyed that I won't give your counterfactual flights of fancy and delirium equal consideration.

Because of course I won't; your claims are nonsense and don't hold up to scrutiny. You're not describing reality.



Literally nothing I said proposed any such view of human nature. What I'm describing is observable fact, in how human populations have actually reacted to changes.

Oh, and basic grade-school mathematics, which your claims also violate.



You have cited fuck-all evidence, dude. Don't claim that you're basing it on some such evidence, when you've provided none.

What observable facts? We are discussing theoretical economics...

You believe things will work one way I believe they will work another your not observing a damn thing.

[Endus]

What observable facts? We are discussing theoretical economics...

We really aren't. We're discussing how wage increases (don't) lead to proportional price increases in the marketplace. Actual, practical changes. Not hypotheticals.

I even cited a study of actual data.

You're right about one thing; I'm not going to entertain your imaginary fantasies, not when we've got actual data and real-world facts we can work from.

[Howel]

What observable facts? We are discussing theoretical economics...

You believe things will work one way I believe they will work another your not observing a damn thing.

Theoretical economics is about observable factors, that are attributed weight and impact on the economy. It is not about belief and just self made up logic, which is why you'd be hard pressed to find any actual economist that'd agree with your assertion that there is a direct correlation between wage increases and consumer goods and rental pricing.

[Themius]

Theoretical economics is about observable factors, that are attributed weight and impact on the economy. It is not about belief and just self made up logic, which is why you'd be hard pressed to find any actual economist that'd agree with your assertion that there is a direct correlation between wage increases and consumer goods and rental pricing.

It’s pretty easy to dismiss them.

“Wage increases will lead to people not being able to afford to live! They won’t be able to afford food or shelter”

“That’s the problem now... they’re living that right now”

“Yeah but if we give them more money they’ll be even worse off!”

Most fucking obtuse reasoning

[Felya]

What observable facts? We are discussing theoretical economics...

You believe things will work one way I believe they will work another your not observing a damn thing.

Data and imagination, are not equally theoretical... the welfare queen and 70% of people on food stamps having jobs, are incongruent for that very reason. I think all those people driving Cadillacs in mink coats, are in the imagination of those that have been convinced by corporate goons, that the working class is simply lazy bums. Just not you... you are the best... write in Trump in GA special elections to own the libs... public option and 15$ minimum wage will just cut into your vicariously achieved billions.

[Antiganon]

a) he is factually corret - you are factually incorrect.

any person going to work is effectively selling his most viable resource - time - as an eployee you are effectively selling for examply 40 hours a week for X amount of money of your employers

if you dont have any skills - you time is valued very low and therefore you are paid as low as possible

now if you had skills you could go tell anyone interviewing you "well go f.... yourself im gonna sell my time to someone else" - but because a lot of people dont have any skills they accept any terms that are given to them . they are effectively admiting how low value their time has.

b) i wonder what argument you have against what i written besides insult ? as we have extreme epidemy of obesity caused by people consuming to much calories daily in whole western/northern hemisphere - and US is one of proud leaders in this department.

one of easiest ways to fight it would be to make unhealthy food much more expensive - lets say put in extremly aggresive -100- 200 % tax on snacks , soda drinks etc

this would ensure that people who still want to devour them would do so but people would think 5 times before buying unhealthy food.

c) here another flaw showing your lack of knowledge regarding management - more and more companies go away from strickly hierarchical/pyramid structure to more horizontal ones - ofc there are people at the top there always have to be - but whole structures are much more flattened nowadays .

i also find it ironical that you are effectively denying your own words - saying that society needs hierachy to function properly - yet you claimed that anyone can be at the top managing it.

This argument falls flat when you recognize that workers don't set a price for their labor, employers set a budget.

I have skills in IT infrastructure. I've found they are worth ~$20-30/hour in my area. If I want to buy a nicer house, so I need higher wages, I can go ask a prospective employer to give me $35/hour for my time, and they can tell me to go kick rocks and hire the next guy who will take the $20/hour.

If I have a job already, and I believe I am undervalued, I can go into work and demand a raise or refuse to work, and my employer can fire me in the spot leaving me with nothing.

[Katchii]

I mean it clearly is the case I set my own wage and argue for it. If my employer doesn't want to pay it I simply go work for one that will. This is how every employment situation works. You decide your worth not the company.

Not really true. Your worth is based on what a company is willing to pay you, which is somewhat based on what the industry/ market determines as the worth of the position you're trying to fill. You can't just go around asking for a six figure salary for a position that doesn't pay six figures at any company, they'd laugh at you.

Also, depending on your field, there aren't that many employers willing to hire anyone, let alone someone that's going to aggressively negotiate their worth when there's currently a sea of people who would take the position for less. So unless you're literally traveling the world to find that perfect employer, which not very many people have the time, money or ability to do, your options are severely limited.

With that said, what you're saying isn't false, it's just a bit of an overstatement on just how much control you have in this situation.

- - - Updated - - -

now you have 40-60 year olds doing them - imagine working for 40 years and not learning even 1 valued by society skill to have to work there. depressing

I promise you they've learned some valuable skills in that time frame. The problem is, many employers won't see it that way. The trick is how you market yourself.

Working in fast food doesn't take much in the way of outside training, but not just anyone can do it well. Anyone might be qualified to, yes, but that doesn't mean they will do well. I'm sure everyone knows someone they work with that is perfectly qualified to be doing their job, but suck at it, because of who they are as a person. I'm also sure everyone has had experiences with people in fast food that are really good at their job, and also with people that are really bad at their job.....how many times have you gotten your order and it's wrong, after taking WAY longer than it should to take your order? Or gone to the same place and been pleasantly surprised that they got everything correct, were able to quickly and accurately take your order, etc...? That's what I'm talking about.

[Endus]

Not really true. Your worth is based on what a company is willing to pay you, which is somewhat based on what the industry/ market determines as the worth of the position you're trying to fill. You can't just go around asking for a six figure salary for a position that doesn't pay six figures at any company, they'd laugh at you.

We should also point out that "what a company is willing to pay you" is not equivalent to "the value of your labor, in general" or even "the value of your labor, specifically to that company".

Want a super clear example? Slaves. They were paid, by virtue of being slaves, $0. And yet, entire economies were predicated on the value of their labor and what that labor produced.

Same goes for today. Labor is vastly devalued, and that's why wealth inequality is so grossly attenuated to the megarich. The idea that these wages are somehow the actual production value produced by that labor is just . . . factually wrong. Employees are almost always on the losing side of that evaluation. And that becomes more consistently true the lower on the totem pole we're talking; the exceptions are mostly at the executive level.