Paying a "fair share"

And yet, you and Turtedude cannot tell the difference between a symptom of being poor and a root cause. The two example I gave proved fallacious argument that Turtledude gave was wrong. He stated a root cause of being poor is someone getting pregnant out of wedlock. That specific vice has nothing to do with who is and who is not poor. It is simply a gross stereotype that has nothing to do with realit

You obviously have not been around Hispanics, have you. Hispanics who drop out are not the young females, but the young males who are helping their family, usually their father, uncles, etc, with whatever business they are in. Family is everything. Thus dropping out of school to help the family is a symptom of being poor, not a root cause.

It is called debate and you are not very good at it.

He has not demonstrated nothing. Just because it sounds good and it agrees with your political philosophy or ideology does not mean one proves something. He stereotyped a group of people he knows nothing about nor cares to know nothing about.

There is nothing that he says proves what he says is correct. He is stereotyping a group of people. The main cause of being poor is a lack of opportunities regardless of who or what their vices are. Vices occur in every social strata of the economy and population. To be put simply, not getting pregnant or not dropping out of high school is not a cause, it is as symptom of a much larger issue, one may be financial hardship. But they are not root casues and using population statistics does not prove an argument because it is based on false assumptions that cannot be quantified or qualified statistically.

The only one s who are making things up are two people who do not know what the hell they are talking about. Again, you can provide your unsubstantiated opinions on a topic you know nothing about. Try to blame a group for all of its troubles, but in the end, it demonstrates a lack of education and logical premise.

 

Yes, I know, It is based on a book written by a guy who used population sttistics.

But that is not the root causes of poverty whether it is here in the United States or elsewhere.

It is not dropping out that causes poverty. Dropping out is a symptom of a much larger issue because you have to look at the reason why one dropped out of school. But even if one does not drop out of school does not mean that one will not be poor either.

A lack of adequate education may be a cause of poverty, both here in the United States or in other countries, but a lack of adequate education does not mean one drops out of school though. The difference is one ia a possible cause and the other is a possible symptom and you obviously cannot tell the difference between the two. .

The rest of your post is pure nonsense. I am a free trader, Monetarist when it comes to the economy. I don't blame groups of people for casues. I look at the individual and the circumstnaces surrounding their situation. Some of it may be their own choices, bu some of it may be issues outside their control. AS I said with another poster, one cannot choose family and thus cannot be the reason or cause of poverty. And the same is with you. One cannot blame a group of people while stereotyping what they may or may not have done. That is just plain ignorant. .

 

Yes, that is true.

I am not a Bible thumper either, but I am a Christian though. If one reads the Book of Acts, especially the passage about the Apostile Stephen and his help with the poor, most Christians would ooh an dawe, but not realize that is Christian socialism. Or we could look at what Jesus said about how a rich man can have an easier time passing through the needle's eye than to get into heaven.

Still, it is not a question if one is religious or secular, it is how we interact with other people and not be judgmental as some posters in this thread have demonstrated.

 

Not only is this incorrect it's also hints at mysogynism.

Over 90% of Americans have a HS diploma while 13% fall below the official poverty rate (note: the official proverty rate only addresses the ability to purchase food and not other essential expenditures) according to the US Census data. We can also note that the majority of American jobs don't actually require a high school education but instead require literacy and the US has a 99% literacy rate. High school teaches a broad range of subjects most of which are not relevant to employment. If the person can read and do simply math they're qualified for most employment in the United States.

Of those living below the official poverty line 12% are men and 15% are women so gender only plays a small role.

http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/adult-poverty-rate-by-gender/

Both men and women are responsible for "breeding before marriage" but only the women have a higher poverty rate as a direct result and, as the above statistic reflect, women only have a slightly higher percentage of "poverty" when compared to men.

The majority of in single parent households where women are raising the child (or children) are a result of divorce and not pre-marriage childbirth. We do have a serious problem with teen pregnancy but the statistics are really quite small and insignificant related to overall poverty. 2.65% of girls between 15-19 will become pregnant but girls between 15-19 only represent 6.6% of the population so the overall statistic of teen pregnancy to population is less than 0.15% while the official poverty rate is over 13%.

http://www.census.gov/population/age/data/2012comp.html

There isn't a correlational or causational relationship between drug use and poverty. This belief originated from anti-black racial prejudice where many believe that blacks, that statistically have a higher poverty rate, use illegal drugs more than whites that have a lower poverty rate when, in fact, both use drugs at roughly the same percentages. Statistically fewer whites end up living in poverty for two reasons completely unrelated to drug usage. First is because whites are not subjected to racial discrimination in employment and second is that whites have a much higher generational wealth advantage.

There are numerous reasons behind poverty but we must address the fact that "working poverty" is what we really need to address.

We would all typically agree that a "person should work for a living" but then we tolerate employers that don't provide adequate compensation for their "workers" to live on. If the person is working for a living then they should be able to live off of the wages they receive. Anything else is really illogical.

Why aren't we requiring employers to provide enough compensation so that their employees can "work for a living" in the United States?

 

Because it would be a violation of their peaceful liberty.

 

What is ignorant is enabling the social pathologies that contribute so much to poverty. and the fact remains, we have way too much dependency on government which serves the political goals of at least one of the two major parties.

and tell me what your solution is other than taxing other people more

 

collectivists seem to think the purpose of a corporation is to provide the desired benefits every person (they argue) deserves. A corporation is created to make its creators money. A byproduct of a corporation is it requires a commodity known as LABOR. A corporation that pays too much for any commodity, including labor, will suffer a competitive disadvantage and violate its main reason for existence-to make its owners money.


If the quantity and quality of YOUR commodity-=labor-(i.e. your stock in trade) is not SUFFICIENT to provide for you the compensation you desire, that is not the fault of whomever you trade with (i.e. your employer). It is your fault for not having a commodity that is more valuable.

basic economic reality is contrary to many leftwing mantras

 

Very true. The reality is that each of us is in business for ourselves, even if at the moment one has only a single customer for his services (i.e. an employer). It is incumbent upon each of us to formulate a business plan that, when implemented, will allow us to earn enough to live on. If you can't do that, you need to rethink your plan and develop the ability to deliver a service by which you can support yourself.

 

How do you determine "fair share?"

More importantly, for those who support people paying different rates, how would you go about determining the tax rate schedules that set the rates for each individual income group? I've never actually seen anyone on this forum who has outlined a method for doing so. All I keep seeing is people claiming that high earners should pay more, but it never goes beyond that. There's actually quite a bit of economic theory based on this, so feel free to use this as part of your methodology if you are familiar with it.

Someone step up.

 

No it wouldn't.

 

Nonsense. When the people you trade with conspire to drive down the value of your commodity, it is not your fault.

 

Of course it would be. You are using the force of law to restrict their otherwise peaceful behavior.

 

Since it is well documented that the Clintons have made over $100,000,000 in the last ten years or so, are they paying their "fair share"?????

 

Paying slave wages is not peaceful behavior.

 

Uh, yeah it is. Giving someone money is peaceful behavior.

 

Employers don't give anybody money. They pay for labor. Paying slave wages for labor is not peaceful behavior.

 

Yes they do. It's called a paycheck.

I'm afraid it is peaceful behavior. There is no trespass against or violation of anyone's body or propety, nor threat to do so.

And by the way, slaves don't get wages, so the term "slave wages" is nonsense.

 

Paying someone for service is not giving them money.

I'm afraid you are incorrect. Peaceful behavior does not provoke conflict. knowingly paying workers less than they feel they are worth and less than they can live on when they have no better options provokes conflict.

The phrase "Slave wages" makes perfect sense when discussing people being paid less than enough to meet basic needs.

 

Double the cost of labor to all business and government then wonder why the USA cannot compete with the rest of the world?

Where does most of the discretionary money get spent? Walmart, mall stores, grocery stores, liquor stores, gambling, etc. Very little consumer demand will go back to the companies they are currently working for so higher labor costs do not necessarily increase demand. Most of this spending grows imports!

I've said it many times here that IMO we cannot consume ourselves into economic prosperity. Personal consumption is a large part of GDP but it has the least amount of growth potential and huge risks. This is why the US must greatly increase exports and service the other 7 billion consumers on this planet. But in order to do this the US must be competitive and doubling our labor costs is not going to help...

 

Good plan if your goal is the have the richest 1% get more and more of the nation's income and wealth. Which it is.

 

Good point. Businesses will pay employees as little as they can get away with -- even if it means that employees don't have even subsistence levels of income. Businesses will pay them as little as possible, work them as long as possible, provide them no benefits at all. That is what the capitalist system expects them to do.

Which is why we need things like unions, fair labor standards, minimum wage, government jobs programs, etc.

 

Your political diatribe never has and never will solve anything! Whine...whine...whine as if evil forces have forced millions of Americans into poverty and income inequality. All of our problems and the answers can be found in our mirrors...not with the government or all those evil people.

And yes, in the past few decades the workplace has drastically changed! Today we have low-level employment and higher level employment and not much in between. People who gain skills, obtain education, make better decisions in life, are quite capable of competing for higher-level jobs. Those who do the opposite are forever relegated to lower-level jobs...and the quantity of this group is growing. However, every single worker in the lower-level jobs can achieve anything they wish BUT it requires personal actions...

 

Paying Wal-mart clerks a liveable salary isn't going to make the US less competitive.

If you really want to make US businesses more competitive, let's do Govt paid health care like the rest of the developed world and take that huge burden off our businesses.

Everything spent in the economy. What are you talking about?

You've been wrong many times. If people don't have the money to spend, economic growth will be constrained. Exporting is nice but 90% of the economy is domestic. US companies' growth will be limited if we continue to straggle the consumers to pamper to the richest.

Time to reverse "trickle down".

 

If the employer didn't give them money, it would be very unlikely that they would agree to perform the service.

This statement is false, and can be disproven by and example. If I invite all of my neighbors but one to a BBQ, this is certain to cause conflict, as the slighted neighbor will feel I have slighted him. However, this is still peaceful act, as it does not trespass against anyone's body or property, nor is it a threat to do so.

If you are going to disqualify any act that hurts people's feelings from being peaceful, then I will have to rephrase my initial comment so be more precise: Because unless someone has trespassed against the body or property of someone else, or has made threats to do so, they ought to be free to act as they please.

If they aren't being paid what they want by this particular employer, they are perfectly free to leave his employ. They are his legal property, and are therefore not slaves.

It's not my employer's (or anyone else's) role to make sure I can earn enough to meet my basic needs. It's my job, and mine alone.

 

Richest 1% benefit under any system. Under a system with massive government interference in which they attempt to help the less fortunate and to "even the playing field" the rich still benefit, and possibly even to a greater degree. Things like barriers to entry (erected by govt regulation) are one of the causes for the wealth concentration you see today.