Prove me wrong:
When Obama talks about growing the middle class from the "middle out, not from the top down," he is only talking about increasing welfare.
There is no "upward mobility" for those who are wedded to welfare payouts. If there was, we would not need increased education and job training.
Only 4% of the work force, or, around 6 million people, work for minimum wage, and 3 million of these folks are kids, 25 years and younger.
In 1979, 14% of the nation's workforce (approx 112 million people) was on minimum wage, today it is about 4% of 148 million employed. Understand that 14% of 112 million is 15 and half million (1979). In 1979, the minimum wage was $2.90. Today, 35 years later, it is close to $8.00 per hour. The liberal myth tells us that a rising minimum wage does not kill low paying jobs. Nonsense.
To recap: in 1979, 15.5 million workers made minimum wage at 2.90. Today, 35 years later, only 6 million workers earn minimum wage ($8.00).
_______________________
Liberal myths about the minimum wage
(Information collected by Breitbart.com):
Myth 1: Hiking wages for those at the lowest rung of the job market will boost the economy.
The truth is, there simply aren’t that many people earning the
minimum wage. In 1979, almost 14% of hourly-paid workers earned the
federal minimum wage. Today, according to the BLS,
just around 4% of hourly-paid workers earn it. Among all wage and
salary employees, only a little over 2% earn the minimum wage. Among the
entire labor force, the number is even smaller. In 2012, just 1.6
million employees were paid the minimum wage.
Myth 2: Minimum Wage Workers Are Poor
Even if the number of minimum wage workers is small, at least a
mandated wage hike would boost the fortunes of the lowest-income
Americans, it is argued. The problem with this argument is that most
minimum wage workers aren’t poor.
A recent study
looked at those who would benefit from an increase in the federal
minimum wage from $7.25 to $9.50, comparable to the level proposed by
President Obama. Just over 11% of workers who would gain from an
increase live in poor households. Over 63% of the workers who would gain
are second or third earners in families making well over the federal
poverty line. 43% of workers who would benefit live in households with
income over $50,000 a year.
The simple truth is that most minimum wage workers are teens, young
adults just starting in the labor force and spouses providing a second
income to a household. In fact, as federal minimum wages increase, these
workers become a larger share of the minimum wage workforce as they
crowd out those workers with fewer skills.
Myth 3: Minimum Wage Workers Are Supporting a Family
The most emotional appeal for increasing the minimum wage is the
picture of a family struggling to get by on a minimum wage job. It seems
inconceivable to many Americans that someone would be able to raise a
family on just a minimum wage job. Fortunately, the vast majority of
Americans earning the minimum wage aren’t trying to raise a family.
According to BLS, about half of those earning the minimum wage are under 25. A recent study
by Dr. Bradley Schiller, professor emeritus at American University,
found that among families where an adult was earning the minimum wage,
94% had a spouse who was also employed, often far above the minimum
wage. In almost half of these families, the spouse was earning over
$40,000 a year. That small subset of adults trying to raise a family on a
minimum wage job have very low skill levels. Unfortunately, it is these
workers most vulnerable to any contraction in employment caused by a
minimum wage hike.
Myth 4: A federally mandated wage hike is the only way minimum wage workers get a raise
Minimum wage hike supporters often talk about workers “stuck” in
minimum wage jobs. To many politicians, the only way a minimum wage
worker gets a raise is through legislative action.
Research, fortunately, shows a different picture.
Nearly two-thirds of all minimum wage earners receive a raise with the
first 1-12 months on the job. This is consistent with what we
anecdotally know about minimum wage jobs; they are “first jobs.” They
are entry-level job, providing many workers with their first job
experience. As they gain experience and skills, employers will increase
their pay to retain their better-skilled employees.
The pernicious effect of a mandated wage hike is that it increases
the entry-level skill-set required to take these first jobs. It
artificially lifts the first-rung of the job ladder, denying low-skilled
workers the opportunity to gain skills and move up the job ladder.
Myth 5: A mandated wage hike is the best way to improve income for minimum wage workers who are poor
The number of minimum wage workers who are poor and struggling to
raise a family is thankfully very small. That said, some number of these
workers do exist. Even if there are negative consequences elsewhere, at
least these few would see a benefit, right? In short, no.
In the 1970s, President Gerald Ford signed into law the Earned Income
Tax Credit. The program is based on the negative income tax concept
first developed by Milton Friedman. Low-income households receive a
refundable tax credit, the amount of which is based on their other
income. It acts as a guarantee of minimum income, rather than a minimum
wage.
As a worker’s wages rise, the amount of EITC they can claim goes
down. Their wages may go up, but the overall amount of household income
they have may stay the same. If, however, the mandated wage hike has a
disemployment effect on these low-wage workers, they may be far worse
off than before the wage hike.
The benefit of increasing the EITC, rather than a simple minimum wage
hike, is that you can concentrate the benefits on those politicians
claim they want to help; low-income, poor workers struggling to raise a
family. If a minimum wage his causes people to lose their jobs, it is
these workers, with lower skill-sets, most vulnerable to the job loss.
The will reap the fall-out of those politicians trying to help.
We have to begin any discussion of raising the minimum wage with a
basic question of what it is we are trying to do. If our goal is to help
those few workers who are trying to raise a family on the minimum wage,
a federally mandated increase may be the worst thing we can do.
Like the GOP, Smithson is, and will always remain: ON THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY.
ReplyDeleteGALLUP: By a more than 2 to 1 margin, Americans think wealth needs to be more evenly distributed 63% to 31%.
Independents: 61% to 32%, Democrats: 86% to 12%, and - on the wrong side of history- the Republicans with 34% to 56%.
2 to 1
Game over, GOP does not represent America - PROOF
http://www.gallup.com/poll/182987/americans-continue-say-wealth-distribution-unfair.aspx
Hey Comrade, you don't distribute wealth, you earn it or take your fair share ($38,000 total) in welfare benefits. The top 10% of wage earners in this country, pay 70% of all state and federal taxes. The bottom 50% of this nation's population pays 3% of all taxes. So, cut the crap that the "rich" needs to pay their fair share. They have been doing that for several decades, now.
Deletesmithson's idea of fairness:
Deleteaverage cost to taxpayers:
food stamps - $36 / yr
oil company subsidies - $5737 / yr
Not sure where you got your numbers, but here is the truth: In a single month, the food stamp program costs the few Americans who pay taxes, 5.77 BILLION dollars according to the Kaiser Foundation . . . . . . that's "per month." Nearly 50 million Americans are on the Food Stamp Program, making your numbers laughable. 5.77 billion is a hell of lot more than $36.00 per tax payer, Slyck. "Science 2.0" tells us that Green subsidies cost the taxpayer $270 billion in 2014 versus $37 billion for fossil fuel subsidies in 2014 (http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/).
DeleteBTW, the fossil fuel subsidies figure out to 3 billion a month versus 5.8 billion per month for Green Energy. Fossil fuels constitute 85% of our national energy supply, well worth the 37 billion per year. The Green industry supplies no more than 15% of our annual usage -- a huge expense for "next to nothing" in supply.
DeleteAccording to a new estimate compiled by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Big Oil companies are benefiting from global subsidies of $5.3 trillion a year.
Deletehttp://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=42940.0
a married person with one child who makes $50,000 a year will pay $36.82 in taxes to ensure the food stamp program is fully funded. But wait, there is more. That $36.82 is not only for food stamps. Indeed, that money is allocated to two other programs that include the school lunch program, and the special supplemental food program for women, infants and children.
http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2012/09/person-making-50000-dollars-year-pays-10-cents-day-taxes-food-stamps
Not sure where you got your numbers, but here is the truth: In a single month, the food stamp program costs the few Americans who pay taxes, 5.77 BILLION dollars according to the Kaiser Foundation . . . . . . that's "per month." Nearly 50 million Americans are on the Food Stamp Program, making your numbers laughable. 5.77 billion is a hell of lot more than $36.00 per tax payer, Slyck. "Science 2.0" tells us that Green subsidies cost the taxpayer $270 billion in 2014 versus $37 billion for fossil fuel subsidies in 2014 (http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/). BTW, the fossil fuel subsidies figure out to 3 billion a month versus 5.8 billion per month for Green Energy. Fossil fuels constitute 85% of our national energy supply, well worth the 37 billion per year. The Green industry supplies no more than 15% of our annual usage -- a huge expense for "next to nothing" in supply.
DeleteNone of my numbers come from partisan sources. Tom Hartmenn is a flaming Marxist oriented Progressive, which means "lying" is something the practices as a matter of Progressive policy. I have proven that to be a fact, many times on this blog. And the IMF is One World organization, believing in wealth redistribution (a process that steals from those who know how to make money and supply jobs to those who have no clue). Again, IMF members actually believe that "lying" is a duty, in the debate to win hearts and minds.