McDonalds.....Don't Eat the Food!

   / McDonalds.....Don't Eat the Food! #131  
What you are leaving out is that is it not just one meal at McDonalds that will go up 64 cents. Its all three meals every day of every week of every year because ALL minimum wage jobs involved in everything will go up, not just McDonald's employees. Grocery store clerks, Walmart floor employees, retail clothiing storesm all part time jobs. Just in food at 64 cent per meal increase, that's $700.00 more per year out of my pocket and I eat cheap. And that's just me. Add my spouse into that and my food bill increases by $1400. Oh wait, I have a family of 4. That's a $2800 dollar per year increase in my just my food budget. Will I go broke over $2800 dollars more per year in food? Probably not. But I'll also pay more for clothing, household items, etc... so it is significantly more.

So, to answer your question. "Will the recipient become self-supporting and save you money in the long run?" the answer is a resounding NO. My after expenses income will be reduced by thousands of dollars due to the higher cost of living, yet I'll still be paying the same amount of income tax and paying more in sales tax as the prices of goods and services rises to offset the raise in minimum wage.

Then you have decided the math works better for you to pay for welfare--and all the additional social costs that go with that. Poverty is expensive to societies in many ways. How is that working out for anyone who works for a living?

You would not be paying the same amount in taxes. Taxes of any flavor are collected to cover expenses. People earning a living wage represent tax revenue, not tax expenditures on welfare.

The current federal minimum wage of $7.25 was set in 2009. As of July 2013, it is worth $0.65 less in actual purchasing power. The real purchasing power of the minimum wage peaked at $10.56 in 1968 and has been going down since.
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42973.pdf‎
 
   / McDonalds.....Don't Eat the Food! #132  
As to rent-seeking, I'm not sure publicizing factual information qualifies for that term.

Dave,

So an analysis by the Heritage Foundation is dubious, while an analysis funded by Fast Food Forward is not to be questioned?;)

I have started reading the Fast Food Forward report, but have yet to reach the part where they talk about the additional unemployment that will result from government-mandated wage increases, the substitution of capital for labor, the roadblocks for folks that might be thinking about opening a business, the prospects for employment of high school dropouts (especially young black males), etc.

I will report back after I have read their discussion of those issues.

Steve
 
   / McDonalds.....Don't Eat the Food! #133  
Dave,

So an analysis by the Heritage Foundation is dubious, while an analysis funded by Fast Food Forward is not to be questioned?;)

I have started reading the Fast Food Forward report, but have yet to reach the part where they talk about the additional unemployment that will result from government-mandated wage increases, the substitution of capital for labor, the roadblocks for folks that might be thinking about opening a business, the prospects for employment of high school dropouts (especially young black males), etc.

I will report back after I have read their discussion of those issues.

Steve

Steve,

Not at all. The point is, if there is a counter argument, it needs to be made, made well enough to withstand scrutiny, and be inclusive enough to be relevant.

What is relevant to Fast Food Forward is that minimum wage earners are not earning a living, and that is reflected by the fact that 52% of fast food workers' families represent some sort of welfare burden when only four of the major welfare programs are considered.

As you know, the minimum wage was first set in 1938 at 25 cents/hour, and has been adjusted 28 times since.

The impact of raising the minimum wage is limited by the number who are actually paid at that rate.
Minimum wage workers account for 4.7 percent of hourly paid workers in 2012 : The Editor’s Desk : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
In 2012, there were 3.6 million hourly paid workers in the United States with wages at or below the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. These workers made up 4.7 percent of the 75.3 million workers age 16 and over who were paid at hourly rates. In 2012, 6 percent of women who were paid hourly rates had wages at or below the prevailing federal minimum, compared with about 3 percent of men.

Looking at the population segment that matters the most in addressing poverty:
Median weekly earnings at $771, third quarter 2013 : The Editor’s Desk : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
The 1st Quartile of weekly earnings for high school graduates 25 and older, no college, is $477, the median is $659, the 3rd Quartile is $933.
There are roughly 33.6 million employed people who are high school graduates 25 or over. $15/hour is $600 per 40 hour week. Roughly 50% of those 33.6M are those who are earning less than $15/hour, or 16.8 million people. Total non-farm seasonally adjusted employment is over 135 million. A $15/hour minimum wage would affect ~12% of total employment when this segment (25 or older, HS diploma, no college) is considered.

In any case, I think you and I are viewing two different concepts. I'm saying that a wage needs to provide a reasonable living. You are pointing out the mechanics of the economics involved. I am sure you sincerely believe that minding those mechanisms is the surest path to an equitable and healthy society, and you may be correct. I am worried that the current and future reality does not reflect that.

Hiring of human labor in the US since the mid-2000's has been abysmal. I don't see how it will not remain so until global wage costs become more equalized. Meanwhile, the cost of living in the US is not declining.

There are social issues that seem to be immune. We will never raise people out of poverty by paying them less than the costs of living. We will never beat the machines with human labor; that trend is clear. Rising wages can accelerate that progression while more people are born every minute. The tenets of economics can explain that, but what social answers can it provide? Eventually, a social solution will be needed.

There are not a lot of employed young blacks now, and many who are do not make a living wage. Poverty has a huge cost in social disruption. That is clearly visible in incarceration rates:
Five things everyone should know about US incarceration - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

"Mass incarceration has had a devastating effect on blacks and Hispanics in the US. African Americans are six times more likely to be incarcerated than a white person and non-white Latinos are almost three times more likely to be incarcerated, according to the Pew Center on the States.

Incarceration hits hardest at young black and Latino men without high school education. An astounding 11 percent of black men, aged between 20 and 34, are behind bars.

Much of the racial disparity is a result of the US' war on drugs - started by President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. By 1988, blacks were arrested on drug charges at five times the rate of whites.

By 1996, the rate of drug admissions to state prison for black men was 13 times greater than the rate for white men. This is despite the fact that African Americans use drugs at roughly the same rate as white Americans."


The Top 10 Most Startling Facts About People of Color and Criminal Justice in the United States | Center for American Progress
"According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, one in three black men can expect to go to prison in their lifetime."
 
   / McDonalds.....Don't Eat the Food! #134  
I'm glad I unsubscribed from this thread, it will eventually turn into a "I am smarter than you" thread.
 
   / McDonalds.....Don't Eat the Food! #135  
Yeah, I am jumping out too. Later...
 
   / McDonalds.....Don't Eat the Food! #136  
In any case, I think you and I are viewing two different concepts. I'm saying that a wage needs to provide a reasonable living. You are pointing out the mechanics of the economics involved. I am sure you sincerely believe that minding those mechanisms is the surest path to an equitable and healthy society, and you may be correct. I am worried that the current and future reality does not reflect that.

Dave,

My view of the world is indeed colored by my study of economics. When policies are put forward that proponents claim will cure some social ill (e.g., a "living wage" mandate), I'm inclined to say "Really"? There's the "seen" -- the obvious higher wages for those that remain employed and the "unseen" -- the not so obvious, unintended consequences. An economist ought to draw attention to the "unseen." I favor policies that promote economic growth, and in my opinion a "living wage mandate" doesn't fit the bill.

Regarding equitable solutions, Steve Landsburg at Search Results for ‘minimum wage tax’ at Steven Landsburg | The Big Questions: Tackling the Problems of Philosophy with Ideas from Mathematics, Economics, and Physics has an interesting argument.

Fairness tells me that the cost of a widely-supported program should not be dumped on a small segment of society, and moreover that it especially should not be dumped on that small segment of society that has already helped to alleviate the perceived problem (i.e. those who have already been providing jobs for unskilled workers) ..... Political wisdom tells me the same thing. It's very easy to support programs that other people will have to pay for. But voters, like everyone else, should bear the costs of their own decisions. Letting people vote for expensive programs that somebody else will finance is a good recipe for getting people to vote irresponsibly.

Steve
 
   / McDonalds.....Don't Eat the Food! #137  
I'm glad I unsubscribed from this thread, it will eventually turn into a "I am smarter than you" thread.

Yeah, I am jumping out too. Later...

I hope you don't see it that way. I'm not trying to impress anyone. I enjoy debating these issues, I learn from it. For me, that is one of the main pleasures of TBN. I can exchange ideas with people from all over the world, and from all sorts of life experiences.

Out of respect for Steve's expertise, I'm going to try to bring my best game with numbers and logic that illustrate my viewpoint. I don't expect to alter his, or anyone's thinking on the issues. I do like to hear people make a good, well-grounded, spirited defense of their own point of view.
 
   / McDonalds.....Don't Eat the Food! #138  
I don't agree with those comments, either. I've been following this thread because it has become a respectful exchange of well-thought arguments between two obviously intelligent men. I'm here to learn by reading the exchange, and I'm here because I'm open to having my mind changed on the issue.
 
   / McDonalds.....Don't Eat the Food! #139  
Then you have decided the math works better for you to pay for welfare--and all the additional social costs that go with that. Poverty is expensive to societies in many ways. How is that working out for anyone who works for a living?

You would not be paying the same amount in taxes. Taxes of any flavor are collected to cover expenses. People earning a living wage represent tax revenue, not tax expenditures on welfare.

The current federal minimum wage of $7.25 was set in 2009. As of July 2013, it is worth $0.65 less in actual purchasing power. The real purchasing power of the minimum wage peaked at $10.56 in 1968 and has been going down since.
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42973.pdf‎
If you want to call the money I earn at my job "the math" that's fine with me. Raising the minimum wage will do financial harm to me. And I'm fairly certain it will harm most of the folks here on TBN, too. I earn average wages. My wife earns average wages. Yet somehow we've managed to pay all of our bills, raise some children and live debt free for most of our adult lives. If someone asks me to give up an additional $3K to $5k of my wages each year to fund an increase in minimum wage, that will put a serious dent in our finances. That's the math.
 
   / McDonalds.....Don't Eat the Food! #140  
Specifically, I mean that it's more difficult to produce a coherent moral philosophy that requires altruism than it is to produce one that commends rational selfishness, at least in my searching.

Not so much why would someone practice or feel an obligation to selflessness, but whether there IS such an obligation regardless of what someone practices or feels.

I've been letting this roll around in my head for awhile. :)

I can't think of an example where altruism is practiced for it own sake. Maybe someone else has an example.

All of the actions that I considered for pure altruism or selflessness have some sort of reason behind them that implies a reward.

Empathy, an emotion that develops at an early age in "normal" people, causes us to perform acts which could be altruistic but at the same time rewards our empathy impulse. The world would be a barbaric place without empathy. Sociopaths are said to lack empathy when compared to normal people. Some psychologists believe they can profile children at an early age for sociopathic tendencies by observing a lack of empathy. Self-preservation is served by practicing empathy.

I recently was offered $100 for a ruined chainsaw. The person wanted the engine, which still ran, for a micro-go kart. The engine had five years of use and it was not worth $100. It was a spur of the moment thing, not a planned sale. He had a $100 bill and two $20's in his wallet. I accepted the two $20's. I would say I did that because taking the $100 would be in conflict with my self image as being an honest person, not because I wished to be altruistic. I rewarded myself.

Desiring that people earn a living wage is definitely not altruistic on my part. I know what comes with poverty: domestic violence, substance abuse, unwed mothers, low education attainment, unemployment, crime and incarceration, welfare support, and if pervasive enough, an unhealthy society where people are afraid of many things.

I have empathy for people caught in that situation, but I can also count the resulting cost in dollars, and the threat it poses to me and mine. Self preservation. I cannot ignore the absurdity of picking up some self-protection ammo, and a $3.21 breakfast, on the way to work. Those two things are not unrelated. I'm not picking on MossRoad, it's just a metaphor for the situation we find ourselves in.

All in all, from the things I have considered, thinking one is practicing altruism or selflessness would be an illusion.
 

Tractor & Equipment Auctions

2005 Honda Foreman 420 (A50123)
2005 Honda Foreman...
UNUSED HURRICANE STAND ON SKID STEER (A51247)
UNUSED HURRICANE...
2016 HAMM HD+ 120i SMOOTH DOUBLE DRUM ROLLER (A51246)
2016 HAMM HD+ 120i...
2018 Ford F-250 4x4 Crew Cab Gooseneck Service Truck (A51692)
2018 Ford F-250...
2020 Ottawa T2 Spotter Truck (A52384)
2020 Ottawa T2...
2007 FORD F-750XL SUPER DUTY DUMP TRUCK (A51243)
2007 FORD F-750XL...
 
Top