Democrats Are Privately Calling Obama "Detached," "Flat Footed," "Incompetent"

[PEB]

The problem is that MW isn't necessarily targeted at the poor (though many like to think it is) which is why you shouldn't compare it to programs like SNAP (which actually is targeted at the poor).

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44995


In other words, the vast majority of the benefits resulting from a higher minimum wage would go to non-poverty households.

Yet I drive around a 3 mile area near my house and is very poor and there is literally 2 McDonald's, 2 Burger King, Wendy's, 3 Subways, 2 little caesars, Denny's, Walmart, Sears, 2 Dollar Trees, Lowes Home Improvement, Papa John's. All of these are major national companies who I would imagine would not have to much problems bumping up peoples pay in a poor area. I have a tendency to doubt many CBO studies because I live near a very poor area and none of these businesses are hurting for business. Its not like they could not afford to give a higher starting pay for employees. I believe that the Papa Johns, Subways, Little Caesars and McDonalds are franchises? But the places are always pretty busy except for late at night.

 

[ben236]

Yet I drive around a 3 mile area near my house and is very poor and there is literally 2 McDonald's, 2 Burger King, Wendy's, 3 Subways, 2 little caesars, Denny's, Walmart, Sears, 2 Dollar Trees, Lowes Home Improvement, Papa John's. All of these are major national companies who I would imagine would not have to much problems bumping up peoples pay in a poor area. I have a tendency to doubt many CBO studies because I live near a very poor area and none of these businesses are hurting for business. Its not like they could not afford to give a higher starting pay for employees. I believe that the Papa Johns, Subways, Little Caesars and McDonalds are franchises? But the places are always pretty busy except for late at night.

There are plenty of fast food joints all over the place. Doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of people who work at them are not below the poverty line.

 

[Diablo Ryu**]

Obama is only known for being black.

 

[TheFirstEMP]

His golfing game is garbage. Obama = golfing can.

 

[sickc0d3r]

The problem is that MW isn't necessarily targeted at the poor (though many like to think it is) which is why you shouldn't compare it to programs like SNAP (which actually is targeted at the poor).

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44995


In other words, the vast majority of the benefits resulting from a higher minimum wage would go to non-poverty households.

I agree that mw suffers from leakage. That doesn't negate my point, however, because it also benefits the working poor, who happen to represent the majority of people on welfare (of those who are able to work). The post I responded to specifically said "It doesn't help the poor."

 

[PEB]

There are plenty of fast food joints all over the place. Doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of people who work at them are not below the poverty line.

I think you would be surprised many of them work two jobs more have added a 3rd job into the mix. Someone I know who works at McDonald's also works nights at Taco bell. I forgot to add the one taco bell in the area. She has two jobs and the problem is she has to work late nights at the Bell "24 hours" then work early morning at McDonalds. Nether place will give her even 20 hours.

 

[IGIT]

From CNN's John King and panelists,

[YT]<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/aztOfMOAN-s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/YT]


Or if you prefer, from Politico

Headline: "Barack Obama

 

[panamaican]

I agree that mw suffers from leakage. That doesn't negate my point, however, because it also benefits the working poor, who happen to represent the majority of people on welfare (of those who are able to work). The post I responded to specifically said "It doesn't help the poor."

That's simply not true.

I said "Welfare and food stamps help the poor but they also doom them to stasis."

I did say that the minimum wage doesn't help the poor. It helps people who already have jobs by establishing a price floor on wages. But your truly poor don't have jobs and so can't benefit from the price floor. For those unemployed individuals looking for work, the minimum wage drives the unskilled labor out of most of the job market unless they possess skills worth the minimum wage.

As for the individuals who are of the working poor, the minimum wage doesn't help them either. It doesn't position them to do anything but subsistence living. The people who benefit most from a minimum wage are people with skills who can expect higher wages because the minimum wage is what you pay the unskilled so the skilled can demand more.

 

[sickc0d3r]

That's simply not true.

I took that quote directly from your post.

I said "Welfare and food stamps help the poor but they also doom them to stasis."

I addressed this, and I asked for a source because I am interested.
The research I have seen, for some of which I provided links, refutes the idea that people are generally stuck at the bottom if they accept welfare.
For example, assistance that is contingent on being employed or looking for work is especially effective at increasing the work and earnings of female-headed families (the most over-represented group among working poor), and boosting the school achievement and college attendance rates of their children.
I submit that anyone who's been "doomed to stasis" by accepting help was never likely to do any better, and probably much worse, without that help.

I did say that the minimum wage doesn't help the poor. It helps people who already have jobs by establishing a price floor on wages. But your truly poor don't have jobs and so can't benefit from the price floor. For those unemployed individuals looking for work, the minimum wage drives the unskilled labor out of most of the job market unless they possess skills worth the minimum wage.

Who are the truly poor who don't have jobs? As I said, 90%+ of people on welfare are either working, elderly, or disabled.

As for the individuals who are of the working poor, the minimum wage doesn't help them either. It doesn't position them to do anything but subsistence living. The people who benefit most from a minimum wage are people with skills who can expect higher wages because the minimum wage is what you pay the unskilled so the skilled can demand more.

Once again, this doesn't appear to be supported by facts. Even the cbo report mentions an increased mw to $10.10 would result in 16.1M people receiving higher wages, 1M people being lifted out of poverty, and 500K possible job losses which would be offset partially by increased demand and people dropping their second jobs. Sounds helpful to me.
I don't know what you mean by "positioning them for subsistence living". First and foremost, people need to be able to make a living.
I try to keep in mind that, even if mom is a low wage earner for the rest of her life, her kids getting an education and doing better because they are well fed, happy, healthy, and have a mom that can spend time at home, the result is a positive roi.

 

[tkotom]

Obama hate is out of control. I don't mind him.

 

[ben236]

Once again, this doesn't appear to be supported by facts. Even the cbo report mentions an increased mw to $10.10 would result in 16.1M people receiving higher wages, 1M people being lifted out of poverty, and 500K possible job losses which would be offset partially by increased demand and people dropping their second jobs. Sounds helpful to me.

TBF... The CBO also said that the number of unemployed people could increase by over a million. There are over 40 million people in poverty, so legislation intended to help the poor that only brings 900K people out of poverty is extremely low considering this. Also, a net annual increase in income of $30 billion for low wage workers is going to do very little to increase demand in a $16 trillion economy.

I don't know what you mean by "positioning them for subsistence living". First and foremost, people need to be able to make a living.
I try to keep in mind that, even if mom is a low wage earner for the rest of her life, her kids getting an education and doing better because they are well fed, happy, healthy, and have a mom that can spend time at home, the result is a positive roi.

Only 20% of low wage workers are below the poverty line. When only 20% of the people you intend to help benefit, that doesn't seem like a good ROI to me.

 

[ben236]

I think you would be surprised many of them work two jobs more have added a 3rd job into the mix. Someone I know who works at McDonald's also works nights at Taco bell. I forgot to add the one taco bell in the area. She has two jobs and the problem is she has to work late nights at the Bell "24 hours" then work early morning at McDonalds. Nether place will give her even 20 hours.

Uhh... Ok. Not sure how this contradicts anything I said.

 

[sickc0d3r]

TBF... The CBO also said that the number of unemployed people could increase by over a million. There are over 40 million people in poverty, so legislation intended to help the poor that only brings 900K people out of poverty is extremely low considering this. Also, a net annual increase in income of $30 billion for low wage workers is going to do very little to increase demand in a $16 trillion economy.

I took the middle number because "in CBO&#8217;s assessment, there is about a two-thirds chance that the effect would be in the range between a very slight reduction in employment and a reduction in employment of 1.0 million workers. "
Also, a raise to $10.10 is extreme and unlikely, and in my opinion, not ideal. The point remains that poor people benefit from the wage floor:
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-f...of-increasing-the-minimum-wage-kearney-harris

Considering that near-minimum wage workers would also be affected, we find that an increase could raise the wages of up to 35 million workers&#8212;that&#8217;s 29.4 percent of the workforce.
...

Using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, combined with information on the binding minimum wage in each state, we are able to calculate these shares. Just 2.6 percent of workers are paid exactly the minimum wage, but 29.4 percent of workers are paid wages that are below or equal to 150 percent of the minimum wage in their state. Furthermore, the hours worked by this group represent nearly one-quarter&#8212;24.7 percent&#8212;of hours worked, which indicates that a large share of the impacted group is working close to full time hours.

Only 20% of low wage workers are below the poverty line. When only 20% of the people you intend to help benefit, that doesn't seem like a good ROI to me.

Sure, but 60%+ of the working poor are earning wages below the poverty line. That's a significant percentage that would benefit from a livable mw. Also note that most states already have a higher than federal mw, which is why low wage workrers in those states are above the poverty line (so it's working).

 

[ben236]

I took the middle number because "in CBO

 

[sickc0d3r]

That link does not necessarily demonstrate that the poor benefit from the wage floor. Especially when a significant percentage of those 35 million workers are not poor.



Again, 80% of low wage workers NATIONALLY are above the poverty line.

I don't understand what you're trying to argue. We have a mw in this country, and you are saying that 80% of low wage workers are above the poverty line. Isn't that a testament to the effectiveness of mw? Could the other 20% not benefit from a raise?
I'm not trying to espouse mw as the greatest solution to poverty, but it very obviously helps the working poor.

 

[ben236]

I don't understand what you're trying to argue. We have a mw in this country, and you are saying that 80% of low wage workers are above the poverty line. Isn't that a testament to the effectiveness of mw?

Not when there are more low income workers whose HH income is >3X above the poverty threshold (33% of all LI workers) than there are low income workers whose HH income is below the poverty threshold (20% of all LI workers).

Is it really that hard to grasp that the majority of the benefits of a MW increase would go to young people who want a little bit of extra spending money in order to get drunk on weekends?

 

[djacobox372]

"privately?"

If you can actually find a liberal talk radio station in your area you would realize that the complaints about Obama's laziness and spinelessness are hardly "private."

 

[sickc0d3r]

Not when there are more low income workers whose HH income is >3X above the poverty threshold (33% of all LI workers) than there are low income workers whose HH income is below the poverty threshold (20% of all LI workers).

Is it really that hard to grasp that the majority of the benefits of a MW increase would go to young people who want a little bit of extra spending money in order to get drunk on weekends?

It's not hard to grasp, it's just irrelevant to what I've argued (which, again, is simply that poor people benefit from a mw).

For starters, regardless of how mw is distributed among demographics, the fact remains that the majority of people on welfare are working (aside from the elderly and disabled). Therefore, the majority of working poor are directly affected by the mw, no matter what percentage they are of all mw earners.
And before you say they'd be out of a job, there are plenty of studies debunking that since mw has existed:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=4075

In a review of over 60 studies that look for statistical linkages between minimum-wage increases and job losses, economist John Schmitt reports that the most accurately measured results cluster around zero: some studies find that raising the minimum wage has a small negative effect on employment, a smaller number find that it has a small positive effect, and most find no significant effect.

 

[ben236]

It's not hard to grasp, it's just irrelevant to what I've argued (which, again, is simply that poor people benefit from a mw).

For starters, regardless of how mw is distributed among demographics, the fact remains that the majority of people on welfare are working (aside from the elderly and disabled). Therefore, the majority of working poor are directly affected by the mw, no matter what percentage they are of all mw earners.

The stats are pretty clear... 33 million low wage workers, 20% (ie. around 6.5 million) of them live below the poverty line out of the 45 million Americans who live below the poverty line. To put this in perspective, only 14% of Americans who live in poverty are low wage workers.

And before you say they'd be out of a job, there are plenty of studies debunking that since mw has existed:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=4075

Studies have been largely conflicting. It has been by no means debunked nor is there a consensus among economists.

Additionally, your "extra spending money for young people" hypothesis is not supported by facts:

The median age for a MW worker is 24. The idea of debunking the "MW jobs workers are teenagers" red herring by pointing how many of them are over 20 is kind of a joke. 24 is still very young, and plenty of 24 year olds are not even out of college and many of them work low income jobs through college.

Also note how after around age 21, the number of MW workers starts declining significantly as people get older. That's because as they do get older, they start moving on to better things.