Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, January 09, 2020

A new study suggests that raising the minimum wage might lower the suicide rate -- especially when unemployment is high -- and that doing so might have saved tens of thousands of people from dying by suicide in the last quarter century.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Let's hear what the "pro life" party has to say about this.

#1 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-09 02:43 PM | Reply

I think true pro-life folks will embrace this as a reason to support increasing the minimum wage.

I read the attached study but I don't know how valid it is. It's full of "might have" and "could have".

And it appears the study intertwines the unemployment rate and suicide.

For years, there has been a recognized connection between deaths (suicide or otherwise) and the unemployment rate.

This is the first time I've heard of a connection to minimum wage.

#2 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-09 03:18 PM | Reply

" especially when unemployment is high "

Unemployment is pretty low right now, 3.7 percent.

The lowest it's been since 1969.

#3 | Posted by hoser at 2020-01-09 03:20 PM | Reply

One state raised it to $16.75, and plans to raise it again next year. Economy still growing like monster.

Llet's see, and economy needs what? Yeah.

#4 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2020-01-09 03:23 PM | Reply

*consumer economy needs what? Yeah.

#5 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2020-01-09 03:24 PM | Reply

#3 | Posted by hoser

Like the inflation numbers we all know are false, I don't trust the job numbers. We need a quarter million new jobs a year to just break even, and we are barely getting that sort of. You know, to H2-B's for half the wage and illegals that cost about $500 billion a year and fill up more than half of federal prison space.

#6 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2020-01-09 03:28 PM | Reply

#3 Translation "Some preventable economic suicides are fine, just not a lot of them."

#7 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-09 03:59 PM | Reply

"I think true pro-life folks will embrace this as a reason to support increasing the minimum wage."

No, they won't.
But that's just because Pro-life truly means anti-aboriton.
It has the words "pro" and "life" in it, but it specifically refers to protecting the life of the unborn from (typically elective) abortion.
You know, like "State's Rights" specifically means the States get to decide if slavery is right for them.

#8 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-09 04:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Epstein killed himself and had lots of money.

#9 | Posted by Petrous at 2020-01-09 05:43 PM | Reply

They must leave suicide notes explaining that it was because they could not get raises above minimum wage.

#10 | Posted by MSgt at 2020-01-09 05:57 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

Epstein killed himself and had lots of money.

#9 | POSTED BY PETROUS

Bullschit!

He was assassinated by Trump's DOJ.

#11 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2020-01-09 06:15 PM | Reply

So keeping wages down is suicide inducing?

How many suicides does unskilled illegal immigration cause?

#12 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-01-09 06:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So keeping wages down is suicide inducing?

Struggling to make ends meet and not being able. Feeling hopeless. Feeling ignored and forgotten. Feeling worthless.

That's what causes people to commit suicide.

No one expects a sociopath like you to understand.

#13 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-01-09 07:02 PM | Reply

Wow. Imagine if folks got a raise AND there were greater restrictions on access to firearms. The unemployment rate would be higher...
--Gun Strokers

#14 | Posted by catdog at 2020-01-09 07:39 PM | Reply

*consumer economy needs what? Yeah.

#5 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2020-01-09 03:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

That's always been the puzzling thing to me about corporate actions.

They rely on people having money to buy their stuff but they all seem to think they can rely on other people to give enough people enough money to buy their stuff.

Sort of...dare I say it...socialist, no?

#15 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-09 08:46 PM | Reply

So money doesn't buy happiness, but it may help alleviate depression.

#16 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2020-01-09 09:18 PM | Reply

#14 | Posted by catdog

We lick the barrel, we don't stroke it. Those people are pervs.

#17 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2020-01-09 09:31 PM | Reply

"They rely on people having money to buy their stuff but they all seem to think they can rely on other people to give enough people enough money to buy their stuff."

You need to take an econ class. If there are not people to buy the stuff, it won't be produced to start with. And the spending power of one person with $100 dollars is no different than two people with $50.

And if someone has a problem with earning minimum wage, there is a very clear roadmap on how to earn more than minimum wage. And if you're more than 18 years old and you are earning minimum wage, it's because you choose to.

#18 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-10 02:48 AM | Reply

So money doesn't buy happiness, but it may help alleviate depression.

Being broke never depressed me but the stress, that was a different story. I was never suicidal but I could see how being broke could lead to it in someone who was that stressed.

Also if you are a father who can't provide for your children and have life insurance that could cause thoughts of I'm worth more to my kids dead than alive. I didn't have life insurance back then so even if I had been suicidal I wouldn't have done it, because as little as we had it was more than my family would have had with me dead.

#19 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2020-01-10 07:05 AM | Reply

They should have thought of that before they were born poor.

- The Prolife Culture.

So money doesn't buy happiness, but it may help alleviate depression.

#16 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2020-01-09 09:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

I saw it with my parents. The never ending struggle to buy food and clothes for our family. My father was a carpenter who worked for himself. He was injured in 1973 by a drunk driver without insurance and became disabled. If it weren't for social security benefits and food stamps we would have been homeless. Now the oligarchy that runs this nation wants to kill both these programs. Heartless is the only word I can use to describe their actions.

#20 | Posted by Nixon at 2020-01-10 08:50 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

nobody wants to kill social security and food stamps.

are you serious?

#21 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-10 08:57 AM | Reply

wages across the board have risen since 1980 just like minimum wage...maybe not at the same rate but that's another discussion.

what about other wage classes? how about middle class wages or upper middle class wages...as they've increased, have we seen a reduction in suicide rates in those income classes?

#22 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-10 09:01 AM | Reply

I wonder how many suicides would be prevented if we had a healthcare system that didn't bankrupt people who need care.

>>I didn't have life insurance back then so even if I had been suicidal I wouldn't have done it, because as little as we had it was more than my family would have had with me dead.

Doesn't life insurance cover their arse on suicide with some fine print?

#23 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2020-01-10 09:09 AM | Reply

"Doesn't life insurance cover their arse on suicide with some fine print?"

There may be some exceptions to this rule in some states (New York comes to mind)...but suicide is usually only an exclusion in the first 2 years of a life insurance policy.

after that.....it's covered just like any other cause of death.

#24 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-10 09:15 AM | Reply

#24 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Huh. How magnanimous of them :)

#25 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2020-01-10 09:22 AM | Reply

"That's what causes people to commit suicide."

They should move to Honduras. Apparently, being impoverished there provides a much more rewarding life experience. They're 163/183 with regard to suicide rate, vice 34/183 in the US.

That being said, if you want to cut them a check and buy them some friends, have a nut.

#26 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-10 09:26 AM | Reply

"I read the attached study but I don't know how valid it is. It's full of "might have" and "could have"."

How could they use different language?

#27 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2020-01-10 09:36 AM | Reply

as they've increased, have we seen a reduction in suicide rates in those income classes?

I think suicide as it's being presented here is a function of the J-curve where an individual bases their well being against what others have, as well as what they have relative to what they think they deserve. For instance, the quality of life of a Karshian might consider intolerable might be an improvement to me. And what might be considered intolerable to me would be considered lavish by someone from a failed state like Venezuela or Syria. It's really driven by perspective.

In the months following the Black Tuesday, suicide rates were actually lower than they had been before the crash.

#28 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-10 09:38 AM | Reply

"No one expects a sociopath like you to understand."

I feel like you don't understand.

Assuming this study is true, It's saying that some people would choose suicide over taking the very easy steps necessary to earn a higher income.

#29 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-10 09:51 AM | Reply

-Huh. How magnanimous of them :)

I wouldn't give insurance companies even that much credit.....they would exclude it forever if the states would allow them. Only because the states that grant the authority to write policies in their state FORCE that wording into the policies.....it wouldn't otherwise happen.

#30 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-10 09:57 AM | Reply

#30
They'd probably exclude death in general as a reason for claim if they could.

BTW, why don't they call it 'Death Insurance'?
Too morbid?

They tiptoe around that, but then on the next line there's the 'Accidental Death and Dismemberment' insurance. "Well, if i do get caught in the wood chipper, i should think about my family"

#31 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2020-01-10 10:30 AM | Reply

the very easy steps necessary to earn a higher income.

Yeah! Why don't poor people just make more money?

Are you a child?

#32 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-10 11:25 AM | Reply

"Are you a child?"

No, but threatening to kill myself because my parents wouldn't give me money for free is something that I probably something I would have done as a child.

It's not like it takes a degree in rocket science to make more than minimum wage.

You need to learn economics.

#33 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-10 11:35 AM | Reply

-Yeah! Why don't poor people just make more money?

I don't disagree with that comment.....poor folks are poor for certain reasons and we can't just compel them to earn more money.

But....that is also why I have posted over the years similar comments. Such as "If we just pay poor folks to stop being poor....they'll stop being poor".

It's also absurd....when you consider why folks are poor in the first place.

#34 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-10 11:38 AM | Reply

-BTW, why don't they call it 'Death Insurance'?
Too morbid?

Very much too morbid. IT's also why we say "auto insurance" and not "crash insurance".

#35 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-10 11:40 AM | Reply

threatening to kill myself because my parents wouldn't give me money for free is something that I probably something I would have done as a child.

That's a relief, but it's not what this article is about.

It's not like it takes a degree in rocket science to make more than minimum wage.

Nobody said that either.

You need to learn economics.

You need to learn that people exist whose inherent potential will never get them beyond minimum wage work, and that the richest nation in the world shouldn't just let them fall by the wayside.

#36 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-10 11:41 AM | Reply

"You need to learn economics."

You need to get in touch with reality. For some people, many in fact, minimum wage is all they are capable of earning. Blaming them for that is ridiculous, most of them are doing the best then can and are proud of the fact they are working at all, as they should be.

#37 | Posted by danni at 2020-01-10 11:49 AM | Reply

No matter what you do with the minimum wage, it's still going to be the minimum wage and a minimum skilled job.

minimum wage will still be the bottom. People at this bottom will still struggle, over the long term, with the same challenges.

we can't wave a magic wand and make it go away.

If people at the very bottom feel like their entitled to more.....well, that's a tough problem to solve for them.

#38 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-10 11:56 AM | Reply

"You need to learn that people exist whose inherent potential will never get them beyond minimum wage work, and that the richest nation in the world shouldn't just let them fall by the wayside."

You're right. But that is a incredibly small fraction of the workers in this country. And they don't fall by the wayside. They're given a salary or wage commensurate with the economic value. If you think "the world" owes them more, then it should be up to the world to cover the difference between the income they can earn as a result of their economic value and the income "the world" feels that they are entitled to. Otherwise, you're telling them that if their labor is not worth minimum wage, they don't have the legal right to sell their labor for a wage.

#39 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-10 12:10 PM | Reply

"If people at the very bottom feel like their entitled to more.....well, that's a tough problem to solve for them."

No it's not. It's ------- easy.

But why do that when Bernie is offering a solution where they can do less, earn more, and let the government take care of their needs?

#40 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-10 12:12 PM | Reply

40

that's sort of my point. When they are told they are victims of our mean and cruel capitalistic society that they ended up at the bottom (instead of taking some responsibility for where they are in life) and you have politicians offering to support them more than we already do and folks here on the internet blaming you and me for their lot in life.....then yes, it gets harder and harder to convince minimum skilled workers that it's easier than they think to escape that. That kids earn more than minimum wage if they just show up and act like they give a crap once in a while.

#41 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-10 12:20 PM | Reply

#41 | POSTED BY EBERLY

It is a conundrum, but my guess is the majority of suicides aren't the kids though ...

You need to learn that people exist whose inherent potential will never get them beyond minimum wage work,

But that is an incredibly small number, and has more to do with mental and physical handicaps.

#LearnToCode, anyone with a computer and a browser can learn to write code, IT and all sorts of possibilities.

I its not their potential its their will, which as Eberly clearly points out gets satiated ... and the desire to be more dissipates.

#42 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-01-10 12:35 PM | Reply

"and the desire to be more dissipates."

And our govt struggles with generating that desire.

Take our typical 24 year old single mother of 3. 3 different dads...all deadbeats. she got pregnant in high school the first time so she dropped out and maybe has a GED.

she receives all the typical assistance we provide to folks like this...medicaid, food stamps, free school lunches, EITC, etc....

if she manages to increase her skill level, work ethic, etc...then she knows whats coming.....less of the above. What does that do to her "desire"?

I don't want folks to think I want to punish this woman. I want to compel her to get where she is capable of getting to and not hurt her in the process.

#43 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-10 12:44 PM | Reply

they don't fall by the wayside. They're given a salary or wage commensurate with the economic value

...and have to rely on food stamps, housing assistance, and other government benefits to get by because their billion-dollar corporate overlords pay them poverty wages.

That's falling by the wayside as far as i'm concerned. You may think it's fair for middle class taxpayers to pick up the tab, but i don't.

#44 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-10 12:52 PM | Reply

that is an incredibly small number, and has more to do with mental and physical handicaps.

Source on how "incredibly small" that number is?

Or are you and madbomber just pulling this out of your asses like everything else you say?

#45 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-10 12:53 PM | Reply

"minimum wage will still be the bottom. People at this bottom will still struggle, over the long term, with the same challenges.
we can't wave a magic wand and make it go away."

But we could make the minimum wage have the same buying power as it did the last time I worked for that amount...back in 1968.

According to an inflation calculator that would be $11.83 per hour today.

I don't think that would bankrupt many businesses but it would be a significant help for someone trying to eke out an existence working for the minimum wage.

#46 | Posted by danni at 2020-01-10 12:56 PM | Reply

"..and have to rely on food stamps, housing assistance, and other government benefits to get by because their billion-dollar corporate overlords pay them poverty wages."

and you think if we just increase the minimum wage enough then minimum wage workers won't have to rely on food stamps, housing assistance, and other govt benefits to get by?

Is that what you believe?

#47 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-10 12:58 PM | Reply

#46 Exactly. The minimum wage should be adjusted automatically according to a calculation based on the purchasing power of a dollar, not on the whims and benevolence of particular politicians.

#48 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-10 12:58 PM | Reply

you think if we just increase the minimum wage enough then minimum wage workers won't have to rely on food stamps, housing assistance, and other govt benefits to get by?

Since eligibility for those programs is based on income....yes. Was that a real question?

#49 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-10 12:59 PM | Reply

"But we could make the minimum wage have the same buying power as it did the last time I worked for that amount...back in 1968."

IOW, give it the cost of living adjustment it's needed for quite a while?

I understand that.

That's a fair point and perhaps the only point I agree with on this issue.

However, I don't agree with Joe that we can just pay them more and they will be just fine.

#50 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-10 01:00 PM | Reply

I don't agree with Joe that we can just pay them more and they will be just fine.

They'll be more fine than they are today, and less reliant on government programs to survive.

#51 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-10 01:03 PM | Reply

Learning about how to effectively kill yourself is a skill. Too bad that skill can't be learning Python or how to build a website so you can get a raise the old fashioned way.

#52 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2020-01-10 01:07 PM | Reply

Increasing minimum wage comes at a cost - it makes consumer goods and services more expensive.

#53 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-10 01:07 PM | Reply

Yes Joe, I was asking a real question.

Danni just referenced the minimum wage in 1968.

If we just place the minimum wage today to account for the inflation since 1968 then we would have to increase the wage to whatever figure she presented.

Personally, I think those figures should be regional in nature due to the massive differences in cost of living throughout our country....but let's set that aside for now.

So, let's go back to 1968. If the minimum wage was fair back then.......then the folks earning it in 1968 wouldn't have needed the very govt assistance you're asserting wouldn't be necessary today if we paid them the proper cost of living adjusted minimum wage today.

IOW, if we pay less than $12 an hour to minimum skilled workers in most of this country(or where most of them live)...then you think those same folks won't need the same assistance we're giving them now?

that's crap. they are still poor at that wage in most places. they still need healthcare, housing assistance, etc...all the same stuff you believe won't be necessary if we just pay them more.

What I'm saying is that you can't outrun the economic and financial reality that the bottom 20% in this country will ALWAYS need that assistance.

The only other way around it is to freeze the costs of housing, food, clothing, healthcare, and transportation. Can we do that? Of course not...they will inflate and inflate even more if we pay them more.....it's a cycle you can't outrun.

I agree with the cost of living adjustments suggested on minimum wage.....let's do it....but it won't solve those problems.

#54 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-10 01:08 PM | Reply

Good stuff, Ebs.

#55 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-10 01:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

-They'll be more fine than they are today, and less reliant on government programs to survive.

per my 54....I agree they'll be more fine but equally reliant on govt programs to survive.

#56 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-10 01:10 PM | Reply

For the most part, the minimum is, and should remain, set on state by state basis. The cost of living is so disparate depending on where you are that it is economically rididulous to have just one set wage for the entire nation. In fact, what really would make the most sense would be having the minimum wage set on a community by community based using an algorithm that takes into account the costs of living in that particular area. There is no financial correlation between living in San Francisco and living in Green Bay.

#57 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-01-10 01:14 PM | Reply

equally reliant on govt programs to survive.

Nonsense. An extra $200 more per month to buy food might both disqualify you from food stamp eligibility, and make you not need food stamps anymore. What are you missing here?

#58 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-10 01:15 PM | Reply

The notion that everything low wage workers spend their money on will increase commensurately with their wages is equally disproven nonsense.

www.upjohn.org

#59 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-10 01:17 PM | Reply

58

nonsense. as we increase wages for the minimum waged worker, the eligibility levels for things such as food stamps will climb right with it.

same with housing, healthcare, etc....

inflation hits everything...and remember...that guy who is making $200 a month more.....he is still at the bottom.

#60 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-10 01:18 PM | Reply

59

that's not what he said...those prices will inflate ......ALL prices will inflate.

the justification for increasing the minimum wage is to keep minimum wage workers from going backwards.

IOW, keep them in the same place....but that same place is a place where they still need the same assistance.

#61 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-10 01:21 PM | Reply

They should move to Honduras.
#26 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

That seems to be your solution for everything.

Just escape down to Honduras.

It's literally why everything you post is a joke. Because you're clearly out of touch with reality.

#62 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-01-10 01:22 PM | Reply

inflation hits everything...and remember...that guy who is making $200 a month more.....he is still at the bottom.

They're never going to get it. Whether it's printing a hundred dollars, a million dollars or a trillion dollars, the bottom gets a sliver and the top gets the rest, prices go up forever, and they still don't understand why there hasn't been any improvement.

#63 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2020-01-10 01:32 PM | Reply

"...and have to rely on food stamps, housing assistance, and other government benefits to get by because their billion-dollar corporate overlords pay them poverty wages."

An employer isn't going to base wages on what one wants or needs. They're going to base it on the value of the labor they provide. If society feels that someone should be getting more, than society should provide the difference. Because an employer will never, ever, everevereverever hire a person when the cost of paying them exceeds the value they provide to the company. There are other factors as well...but since you've not taken an econ class I don't think you'd understand. And I've never been the most patient instructor.

#64 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-10 01:40 PM | Reply

"That's falling by the wayside as far as i'm concerned. You may think it's fair for middle class taxpayers to pick up the tab, but i don't."

Of course middle class taxpayers shouldn't do it. You put a gun to the head of rich people and make them do it.

#65 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-10 01:41 PM | Reply

"But we could make the minimum wage have the same buying power as it did the last time I worked for that amount...back in 1968."

Or we could could make the buying power the same as when FDR created the program in 1938.

#66 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-10 01:43 PM | Reply

According to an inflation calculator that would be $4.56 per hour today.

#67 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-10 01:44 PM | Reply

"I don't think that would bankrupt many businesses but it would be a significant help for someone trying to eke out an existence working for the minimum wage."

It wouldn't have any impact on business. If the worker wasn't worth $11.38 an hour, they would simply be barred from ever being employed.

#68 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-10 01:46 PM | Reply

"It's literally why everything you post is a joke. Because you're clearly out of touch with reality."

Not really. I'm just pointing out that what you see as reality I see as --------.

Not really --------...you're just not very intelligent. Or at least not very well read. Which is why you would try and correlate a minimum wage, which is incredibly high by global standards, with people committing suicide because they were earning that wage. I was being a bit facetious, but go back and read #28. That was the honest response. I don't think you have the correct background to be able to understand it...but who knows. Good luck.

#69 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-10 01:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The notion that everything low wage workers spend their money on will increase commensurately with their wages is equally disproven nonsense."

I'm with you on this one Joe.

The vast majority of min wage earners are going to be spending their money on new Air Jordans, or something from Hot Topic or Forever 21. And a few more dollars per hour is not going to make much of an impact in the young adult market.

It's not complete nonsense though. As much as I like Andrew Yang, the $1k a month offer really won't do anything but create a new baseline. As a military guy living in North Dakota during the oil boom, our housing allowance was once adjusted by $500 per month to compensate for the rising cost of housing. For those who had bought, we made money. For renters...the landlords simply increased prices to take advantage of the additional income.

#70 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-10 02:00 PM | Reply

if she manages to increase her skill level, work ethic, etc...then she knows whats coming.....less of the above. What does that do to her "desire"?
#43 |

I've known people in this type of situation.
The medical stuff is the big one.
If they get a raise, they'll have to start paying for health insurance, which is WAY f'n more than the paltry pay raise in question.

That's when you start showing that you're really not supervisor material after all...

#71 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2020-01-10 02:03 PM | Reply

"But we could make the minimum wage have the same buying power as it did the last time I worked for that amount...back in 1968."

And what buying power was that?

How old were you in 1968? How many children did you have? IOW, in 1968 how much assistance did a single mother of three require earning minimum-wage?

That mother could buy healthcare housing food school lunches for the kids? All that stuff?

#72 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-10 02:04 PM | Reply

-- be spending their money on new Air Jordans,

Nah, it'll be Nike, the shoe of the oppressed, endorsed by oppressed Colin Kaepernick, produced by oppressed sweatshop workers.

#73 | Posted by nullifidian at 2020-01-10 02:11 PM | Reply

"IOW, if we pay less than $12 an hour to minimum skilled workers in most of this country(or where most of them live)...then you think those same folks won't need the same assistance we're giving them now?"

I think a single person with no kids, in most places, probably not S. Florida or San Francisco, could scrape by on less than $12.00 if they had too. I know I paid all my own tuition, books, transportation, etc. back in those days working for minimum wage. There were, realistically, no student loans available at the time so schools kept the costs pretty low. Now, if you had kids, had to pay for day care, etc. it would be virtually impossible, even back then, to have existed on the minimum wage.

18, zero kids. But I owned a car and kept it insured and repaired. Didn't have a lot of money to spend but I could scrape by...and I did. I got my AA degree and then my life changed with kids, etc. I did finish my degree later though but at a much higher cost.

#74 | Posted by danni at 2020-01-10 02:19 PM | Reply

"If they get a raise, they'll have to start paying for health insurance, which is WAY f'n more than the paltry pay raise in question."

Not in states that have Medicaid expansion. That's one of the best programs for working poor people.

#75 | Posted by danni at 2020-01-10 02:20 PM | Reply

"Nah, it'll be Nike, the shoe of the oppressed, endorsed by oppressed Colin Kaepernick, produced by oppressed sweatshop workers."

Nike makes Air Jordans. The overarching point is that minimum wage earners are predominantly young people living with their parents or attending college. Someone please mansplain to me why a 16 year old living at home requires a living wage. Make me woke.

#76 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-10 02:23 PM | Reply

"Not in states that have Medicaid expansion."

Free stuff is always better than stuff you have to pay for.

#77 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-10 02:24 PM | Reply

An employer isn't going to base wages on what one wants or needs.

Which is exactly why labor laws exist in the first place. Given their druthers, many employers would engage child labor, require 14 hour workdays, etc. Thanks for making my point though - appreciate it!

#78 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-10 02:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I think a single person with no kids, in most places, probably not S. Florida or San Francisco, could scrape by on less than $12.00 if they had too."

That's not what this debate is largely about and it isn't what politicians really care about.

Most poor people are children being raised by a parent who either doesn't work or earn much of a wage. That's the focus of this.

#79 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-10 02:36 PM | Reply

Once upon a time minimum wage earners were predominantly young people living with their parents or attending college. Those days are long gone. Today, most minimum wage earners are adults trying to make ends meet. Often it is two adults in a household, each earning approximately minimum wage combining their incomes to provide for a family. It is right wing lie and fantasy that most minimum wage earners are 16 year old kids living with mom and dad.

#80 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-01-10 02:38 PM | Reply

"I know I paid all my own tuition, books, transportation, etc. back in those days working for minimum wage. There were, realistically, no student loans available at the time so schools kept the costs pretty low. Now, if you had kids, had to pay for day care, etc. it would be virtually impossible, even back then, to have existed on the minimum wage."

see my point? the bottom was the bottom in 1968 and it required assistance.

the bottom is the bottom in 2020 and it requires assistance....even if we increase the minimum wage to a true cost of living adjusted amount comparable to 1968.

and you pointed out one of the major factors why.......the insane amount of inflation that affects minimum wage workers.

You cannot outrun it.

#81 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-10 02:40 PM | Reply

"Today, most minimum wage earners are adults trying to make ends meet. Often it is two adults in a household, each earning approximately minimum wage combining their incomes to provide for a family. It is right wing lie and fantasy that most minimum wage earners are 16 year old kids living with mom and dad."

www.americanexperiment.org

Workers earning the minimum wage are young and unlikely to be supporting a family.

Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly paid workers, they made up about half of those paid the federal minimum wage or less. Among employed teenagers (ages 16 to 19) paid by the hour, about 8 percent earned the minimum wage or less, compared with about 1 percent of workers age 25 and older.

These workers are less likely to be married.

Of those paid an hourly wage, never-married workers, who tend to be young, were more likely (4 percent) than married workers (1 percent) to earn the federal minimum wage or less.

#82 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-10 02:43 PM | Reply

"Of those paid an hourly wage, never-married workers, who tend to be young, were more likely (4 percent) than married workers (1 percent) to earn the federal minimum wage or less."

Yes, it's true. Some of us did find jobs that paid more than the minimum wage but many of the people we worked with, while we were earning minimum wage, did not. For whatever reason; limited intelligence, education, mental health issues, etc. So, all us evil progressives want is for anyone willing to work be able to at least have a roof over their head and food to eat. I honestly don't quite understand anyone who would object to that.

#83 | Posted by danni at 2020-01-10 02:50 PM | Reply

"see my point? the bottom was the bottom in 1968 and it required assistance."

Sure, if you had kids. Personally, I never minded having my tax dollars used to make sure kids don't starve or that they have a safe place to sleep.

I think the difference between folks like me and others who post here is that I don't want to live in a poor country and I'm willing to be taxed to pay for assistance for the poorest among us so that I don't have to live in a poor country. I don't want to see people starving, homeless, especially children. But hey, that's just me.

#84 | Posted by danni at 2020-01-10 02:53 PM | Reply

"Which is exactly why labor laws exist in the first place. Given their druthers, many employers would engage child labor, require 14 hour workdays, etc. Thanks for making my point though - appreciate it!"

My question is why would you expect them to pay for it?

Would you set price floors for anything else? Should the government make laws stating that if you wanted to sell an old car, or TV, or Xbox, you could only do so if the buyer was willing to pay greater than $n?

I have a 2019 BMW X3 sitting in my garage. KBB value is $58k. If I wanted to sell it to my neighbor for $5.80, should the government prohibit my neighbor from buying it?

#85 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-10 03:13 PM | Reply

"Once upon a time minimum wage earners were predominantly young people living with their parents or attending college."

And now upon a time as well.

"Those days are long gone. Today, most minimum wage earners are adults trying to make ends meet."

Not true. 70% of minimum wage earners are between ages 16-34. I mean, I guess if you're going to classify a 19 year old college student (or a 28 year old college student) as an adult trying to make ends meet, you would be correct. Hell, In reality, even the 16 year old worker needs to figure out how to balance infinite wants against finite resources.

#86 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-10 03:28 PM | Reply

"My question is why would you expect them to pay for it?"

Because an individual is powerless against an employer so we need the government to set minimum standards for the cost of labor.

"I have a 2019 BMW X3 sitting in my garage. KBB value is $58k. If I wanted to sell it to my neighbor for $5.80, should the government prohibit my neighbor from buying it?"

No, you can sell it for whatever you can get but an individual, working at the minimum wage level, has zero bargaining power and you know it as well as I do. People are not commodities, we can and do set minimum wages but we just need to raise them to more realistic numbers.

#87 | Posted by danni at 2020-01-10 03:28 PM | Reply

I think it's a sham.

Jack up minimum wage so that those of low economic value are unable to find employment.

Offer lavish benefits with no attachments to those same people in return for a vote.

Feel the Bern!

#88 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-10 03:31 PM | Reply

#86 Not true. 70% of minimum wage earners are between ages 16-34.

When bringing up data, I think it's important to specify - are we talking about people earning exactly the federal (or state) minimum?
Or just schitt pay in general (not sure where that line is)

There's loads of people of all ages working checkout, gas station, fast food, cleaning, making within a few bucks of minimum.

#89 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2020-01-10 03:36 PM | Reply

"Jack up minimum wage so that those of low economic value are unable to find employment."

"Ten years ago, San Francisco raised its minimum wage from $6.75 to $8.50 an hour, a 26 percent increase. Since then, it has gone up at regular intervals to its current $10.74 an hour, the highest big-city starting wage in the country.

The city has slapped other mandates on businesses, including paid sick leave and a requirement to provide health-care coverage or pay into a pool for uninsured residents.

What have the effects been on employment?

Almost none, according to economists at the University of California, Berkeley, who have studied San Francisco, eight other cities that raised their minimum wages in the past decade, and 21 states with higher base pay than the federal minimum.

Businesses absorbed the costs through lower turnover, small price increases at restaurants, which have a high concentration of low-wage workers, and higher worker productivity, the researchers found.

The average increase among cities raising the minimum wage was 40 percent. The average step increase for a phased-in pay hike was 17 percent.

"Our data show that an increase up to $13 an hour has no measurable effect on employment," said Michael Reich, a Berkeley economics professor with the Institute for Research on Labor and Employment."

www.seattletimes.com

#90 | Posted by danni at 2020-01-10 03:37 PM | Reply

I can't believe no one has brought up the $100,000 taco bell salaried manager position that cracked into the news.

#91 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2020-01-10 03:38 PM | Reply

"Because an minimum skilled individual has less power against an employer so we need the government to set minimum standards for the cost of labor."

ft

#92 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-10 03:39 PM | Reply

My original point is still this.....minimum skill = minimum wage = person at bottom of the income ladder. People at the bottom of the income ladder will always need assistance.

#93 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-10 03:41 PM | Reply

#85

Nope but have fun paying the gift tax on it.

#70

That was a unique situation where housing demand far outstripped supply. If you have an area with standard rent vacancy rates just because the tenants have more money does not mean rent will go up. If you were to try and raise rent 1000 bucks in most markets the apartments down the street would keep their rates and you would end up with their vacancies plus your own.

Basic income is the way to go forward, it gets rid of the trap eberly brought up where at a certain point a raise costs more than its worth. I would even propose a basic income and abolishing the min wage.

#94 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2020-01-10 03:46 PM | Reply

"My original point is still this.....minimum skill = minimum wage = person at bottom of the income ladder. People at the bottom of the income ladder will always need assistance."

A single individual should be able to eke out a living without assistance. If they have kids, etc. then that is a different story.

I think I should bring some reality to this picture. In 1970, I rented a two bedroom house trailer with A/C and electricity was included. The cost was $110.00 per month. Even at minimum wage, which I will admit, I was earning more than by that year but not much, and I could make my rent and lived ok, no luxuries but I ate and I had a little VW which got me everywere I needed to go. And, I should mention this detail but you probably won't believe it but it is true. That trailer was on the west side of A1A about 150 ft. from the highway and the most beautiful, pristine beach you can imagine was right on the other side of that road. We had some of the greatest parties in my life from that trailer, usually ending up on the beach with a camp fire. Now, I'll admit, this wasn't an expensive city but it was Florida and it was 1970 and , trust me, Florida was a completely different place in those days.

#95 | Posted by danni at 2020-01-10 03:51 PM | Reply

"I would even propose a basic income and abolishing the min wage."

I have to admit, I'm not ready for that. 1. Who is going to work if they don't have to and 2. as someone else said up the thread the landlords would just jack up the rents and make great profits but people would still be just as poor as they are now.

#96 | Posted by danni at 2020-01-10 03:52 PM | Reply

"When bringing up data, I think it's important to specify - are we talking about people earning exactly the federal (or state) minimum?
Or just schitt pay in general (not sure where that line is)"

Actually, there are more people earning less than minimum wage than there are earning exactly minimum wage.

Most are service industry, of course. Earning $2.35 an hour in wages, far more in tips. I worked in bars throughout college. In 2002, $300 a night on weekends ($428 in 2019$) was pretty normal. I also worked fine dining for a while, where a $100 tip on a table was pretty common.

#97 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-10 03:54 PM | Reply

"Most are service industry, of course. Earning $2.35 an hour in wages, far more in tips. I worked in bars throughout college. In 2002, $300 a night on weekends ($428 in 2019$) was pretty normal."

I know people who put themselves through college waiting tables but not everyone is equipped for such a service oriented job. Waiters and waitresses have to be smart and quick to make that kind of money, there are lots of people who are neither. Those are the people who need a livable minimum wage.

#98 | Posted by danni at 2020-01-10 03:59 PM | Reply

"I should mention this detail but you probably won't believe it but it is true."

I have no reason not to believe that. All fair points, IMO.

"as someone else said up the thread the landlords would just jack up the rents and make great profits but people would still be just as poor as they are now."

exactly....you can't outrun it.

#99 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-10 04:03 PM | Reply

"I know people who put themselves through college waiting tables but not everyone is equipped for such a service oriented job. Waiters and waitresses have to be smart and quick to make that kind of money, there are lots of people who are neither. Those are the people who need a livable minimum wage."

If you're not quick and smart enough to be a waiter, you're never going to be smart enough to survive on your own.

#100 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-10 04:38 PM | Reply

#96

Even with Yangs numbers which I think are too high I know I wouldn't quit working for 2k a month (wife plus me) while I could live on it I wouldn't want to. I don't think many would quit working for that little and the ones that would probably don't contribute much if anything to the workforce.

As far as 2 goes yes inflation would eat up some but not all.

#101 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2020-01-10 04:49 PM | Reply

"If you're not quick and smart enough to be a waiter, you're never going to be smart enough to survive on your own."

What the hell?
Who survives on their own?
Unabomber for all those years?

#102 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-10 05:05 PM | Reply

If you're not quick and smart enough to be a waiter, you're never going to be smart enough to survive on your own.

#100 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

This is why I am a fan of kibbutz s.

Some people just can't manage.

#103 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-01-10 05:07 PM | Reply

Yang's money would likely go toward consumption items or rents/mortgages for most of America. It would act like a stimulus given to 300M people. Not sure whether it would be constitutional or sustainable, unless it would possibly be a 12K tax refund for everyone at the end of the year.

#104 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2020-01-10 05:14 PM | Reply

"Yang's money would likely go toward consumption items or rents/mortgages for most of America."

If I were a landlord, I would increase rent.

Why wouldn't I?

#105 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-10 05:33 PM | Reply

"If I were a landlord, I would increase rent."

with more money in supply...the demand for rent will increase....so, of course the natural next step is to see rents go up.

#106 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-10 05:46 PM | Reply

All jobs should be eligible for minimum wage. Being a waitress to earn a living shouldn't have to rely on tips. Her employer and all jobs should be meeting this need.

Screw the arguments that some jobs are paid less

#107 | Posted by Petrous at 2020-01-10 06:26 PM | Reply

Get rid of the illegals and wages raise naturally along with higher employment rates among US citizens. So, add another 57,000 deaths to the cost of illegal immigration.

#108 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2020-01-10 09:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Screw the arguments that some jobs are paid less
#107 | POSTED BY PETROUS "

Yes - why would it ever make sense to reward people financially for working harder and doing jobs other people are not able to do? All jobs have equal worth and should be paid the same. There is no logical case to be make that the brain surgeon that had to forgo 12 years of their life to master their skill should be paid a dime more than the high school drop out working 20 hours/week waiting tables. It is just not fair.

#109 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2020-01-10 09:04 PM | Reply

People make 15 beans an hour would be completely unsustainable.

Conversely, 5 guys hoarding half a trillion dollars is absolutely sustainable.

#110 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2020-01-10 09:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Conversely, 5 guys hoarding half a trillion dollars is absolutely sustainable.
#110 | POSTED BY MRSILENCEDOGOOD"

That is basically how it has been since we discovered the written word - it was just in past that they were called kings. I hate to say this, but this is the natural order of things. If we released all criminals and divided all wealth equally across the US, within 10 years a vast majority of people that are wealthy today will be wealthy then. The criminals in lock up today, will be back in lock up then.

When people think 'wealthy' they usually envision these families handing down wealth generation after generation without producing anything of value. This is the exception and not the rule in the US. Even family wealth like the Vanderbilts - the next generation (Anderson Cooper) is still rich but it was by his own work (family name and connections definitely help though). Our current 'bean horders' - Gates, Buffett, Zuckerberg, Ellison, Oprah - all rich by their own hands and labor.

#111 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2020-01-10 11:11 PM | Reply

"Being a waitress to earn a living shouldn't have to rely on tips. Her employer and all jobs should be meeting this need."

Employers are obligated to make up the difference between tip earnings and minimum wage if tips are below min wage. But I never saw that happen. And every place I ever worked paid a higher wage during the slower, usually afternoon hours.

#112 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-11 03:57 AM | Reply

"Conversely, 5 guys hoarding half a trillion dollars is absolutely sustainable."

Do you think they should be banned from engaging in those activities that generate that money?

And just so I'm clear, who exactly would be better off if they hadn't earned it?

#113 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-11 03:58 AM | Reply

"When people think 'wealthy' they usually envision these families handing down wealth generation after generation without producing anything of value. This is the exception and not the rule in the US. Even family wealth like the Vanderbilts - the next generation (Anderson Cooper) is still rich but it was by his own work (family name and connections definitely help though). Our current 'bean horders' - Gates, Buffett, Zuckerberg, Ellison, Oprah - all rich by their own hands and labor."

Absolutely true.

90% of family fortunes are gone by the third generation.

But that doesn't fit the narrative. In order to make an argument for seizing wealth, it's easiest to first present the wealth as something they weren't entitled to in the first place. The two most common arguments are they didn't "earn" the wealth, as it was handed down from generation to generation, or the more Marxian argument that they stole the wealth from the "working" man. Both arguments are pretty easy to pick apart if you're willing to engage in a bit of critical thinking.

#114 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-11 04:02 AM | Reply

Do you think they should be banned from engaging in those activities that generate that money?

#113 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

The entire rentier class and all of their lackeys should be guillotined.

#115 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2020-01-11 06:00 AM | Reply

Both arguments are pretty easy to pick apart if you're willing to engage in a bit of critical thinking.

#114 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Profit is theft.

Unfortunately, you're a bootlicking bttch who, ironically, owns zero capital.

I get it. You fancy yourself some kind of player in their game.

The reality is at the very best you lease the bottom brick in their pyramid scheme.

You "picking apart" anything on the topic at hand has earned you some sweet stretch marks about your mouth though.

It's the only thing they won't be able to take back at their convenience.

The boot isn't supposed to be laces deep, nub.

#116 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2020-01-11 06:05 AM | Reply

Fact:

Positions on boards are UBI for the 1%.

Pick that apart.

If you're using talk to text you'll have to spit the boot out. That may make 'em mad.

#117 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2020-01-11 06:12 AM | Reply

"I hate to say this, but this is the natural order of things. If we released all criminals and divided all wealth equally across the US, within 10 years a vast majority of people that are wealthy today will be wealthy then. "

You should hate to say that because it is a totally dishonest and completely made up talking point with no basis in fact. Y'all on the right think that if you repeat a talking point that has been around for a while it somehow becomes a fact....it doesn't, it's still just a dishonest talking point.

#118 | Posted by danni at 2020-01-11 08:03 AM | Reply

"The entire rentier class and all of their lackeys should be guillotined."

So you're saying they should be prohibited from engaging in those activities that have generated wealth?

Should Tom Cruise be prevented from starring in anymore blockbuster movies?

Should Lebron be prohibited from playing ball?

#119 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-11 09:16 AM | Reply

"Profit is theft."

You could ban profit, I suppose. I don't guess anyone really needs credit cards, or car loans, or student loans, or mortgages.

Surely nothing bad could happen if you shut down the engine that has driven this economy forward.

"The reality is at the very best you lease the bottom brick in their pyramid scheme."

I could be buried under that pyramid. And that would still be better than any alternative.

if you don't like capitalism, get the fxxk out. Move to Venezuela or Cuba or something. Why would you waste your life here being a bitter little bitch when you could move to any number of countries where profit is banned, severely restricted, or simply non-existent.

#120 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-11 09:22 AM | Reply

"You should hate to say that because it is a totally dishonest and completely made up talking point with no basis in fact. Y'all on the right think that if you repeat a talking point that has been around for a while it somehow becomes a fact....it doesn't, it's still just a dishonest talking point."

Based on real world experiences, it's highly likely.

A cash windfall for the poor would basically be like a lottery win. According to multiple statistics, about 70% of lottery winners wind up filing for bankruptcy. The reason? having more money doesn't make you less immune to poor spending habits...you simply waste more money than you did before. So instead of going and buying the new iPhone every time one comes out, you're buying the new Cadillac.

In other words, all those qualities that contributed to them being poor in the first place will still be there. Having money won't make them more ambitious, or more willing to go out and be productive. They're still the exact same person they were before they had money.

#121 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-11 09:29 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Profit is theft."

Standard Marxist dogma for almost 2 centuries.

#122 | Posted by nullifidian at 2020-01-11 09:31 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I could be buried under that pyramid.

#120 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

And you likely are.

It's the nature of invertebrates.

#123 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2020-01-11 09:55 AM | Reply

"Standard Marxist dogma for almost 2 centuries."

I've always wondered if they're dumb enough to believe that, or know it's -------- but hope that someone else is dumb enough to believe it.

#124 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-11 10:15 AM | Reply

If you're a failure at life, or at least perceive yourself to be a failure, it's probably not very hard for someone else to convince you that it's not your fault. That you did everything right, but success was robbed from you by capitalists.

Like I said before, the argument doesn't stand up to critical thought...but if someone is telling you what you want to hear, it may not need to.

#125 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-11 10:17 AM | Reply

I don't know about anyone else, but I feel as though a couple of people who told us for years that buying insurance from a private insurance company was Marxism might not be the best people to educate others on what Marxism is.

#126 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2020-01-11 10:37 AM | Reply

You could ban profit, I suppose.

Taken to its logical conclusion, each individual holds profits in the bank/cash. The idea basically bans money, and banks which hold "profit".

You live day to day without needing to "pay" for anything with your "profits".

To each according to his needs.

I've always wondered if they're dumb enough to believe that

There are elites that know this they think it will work out, the typical leaf node on the DR doesn't.

I view it as a suspension of disbelief, because the elites really can't mean that? Right?

#127 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-01-11 10:41 AM | Reply

but I feel as though a couple of people who told us for years that buying insurance from a private insurance company was MArxism

No its about forcing people to buy insurance ..... a very important distinction.

might not best people to educate others on what Marxism is.

Well lots of this criticism comes from people that actually lived under Marxism.

So ... perhaps those that "want" Marxism would listen to those that have?

#128 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-01-11 10:45 AM | Reply

"I don't know about anyone else, but I feel as though a couple of people who told us for years that buying insurance from a private insurance company was Marxism might not be the best people to educate others on what Marxism is."

Welcome to politics. It's kinda like when progressives refer to conservatives as fascists or Nazis.

In fact it was just the other day I saw someone refer to fascist-leaning libertarians. You can be a fascist. You can be a libertarian. But you really can't be both.

#129 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-11 10:54 AM | Reply

"Taken to its logical conclusion, each individual holds profits in the bank/cash. The idea basically bans money, and banks which hold "profit"

That's actually a great point. let's see what our friend has to say about banning banks.

"No its about forcing people to buy insurance ..... a very important distinction."

Another good point. Socialism is inherently authoritarian, but by no means is it the only authoritarian system.

#130 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-11 10:56 AM | Reply

No its about forcing people to buy insurance ..... a very important distinction.

#128 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Revision noted, Karen.

Now if you could just go back and change everything that every republican, elected and not, has said for the last decade you could all move forward and not look like a pack of -----.

Even if you could I'm sure stop signs or handicapped parking spaces would be the new Boogeyman.

#131 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2020-01-11 10:57 AM | Reply

And whilst we are on the subject, would you mind telling the class how many private insurance companies to buy insurance from would exist in Marxism.

You can ask someone one of your slightly less stupid brethren to help you.

Please choose one with a grasp on basic sentence structure.

#132 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2020-01-11 11:00 AM | Reply

That's actually a great point. let's see what our friend has to say about banning banks.

#130 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Banks.

Yap.

So what is it called when the government just hands taxpayer money to an institution, say a bank, to keep it afloat?

I'll wait.

#133 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2020-01-11 11:04 AM | Reply

"So what is it called when the government just hands taxpayer money to an institution, say a bank, to keep it afloat?"

Not certain. I think it's called welfare.

I mean, that's what it's called when the government just hands taxpayer money to keep a person afloat.

It seems pretty similar to me, other than the fact that the banks are obligated to reimburse the taxpayers, while individual welfare recipients have no obligation to provide anything to the taxpayers in return for the money they're given.

#134 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-11 11:16 AM | Reply

"Now if you could just go back and change everything that every republican, elected and not, has said for the last decade you could all move forward and not look like a pack of -----."

They do look pretty stupid sometimes.

Just like Bernie and his ilk when he' babbling on about income inequality. As if the less rich people are being exploited by those who are richer.

Rich people problems, all.

#135 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-11 11:19 AM | Reply

Once upon a time minimum wage earners were predominantly young people living with their parents or attending college....#80 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-01-10 02:38 PM |
As per the norm, moder8 is full of crap.

Age. Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly paid workers, they made up about half of those paid the federal minimum wage or less. Among employed teenagers (ages 16 to 19) paid by the hour, about 8 percent earned the minimum wage or less, compared with about 1 percent of workers age 25 and older. (See tables 1 and 7.)
www.bls.gov

Fewer Americans today make the federal minimum wage or less. In 1980, when the federal minimum wage was $3.10 ($9.41 in 2018 dollars), 13% of hourly workers earned the federal minimum wage or less. Today, only 2% of workers do...Many of the 1.7 million minimum wage earners are young, with almost 70% being 16 to 34 years old.
usafacts.org

Someday moder8 will stop lying speaking from positions of ignorance.

#136 | Posted by Avigdore at 2020-01-11 11:22 AM | Reply

"Someday moder8 will stop lying speaking from positions of ignorance."

The narrative must be defended.

#137 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-11 11:36 AM | Reply

Not certain. I think it's called welfare.
I mean, that's what it's called when the government just hands taxpayer money to keep a person afloat.

#134 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

It's called a system so perfect but the banks even ran out of other people's money.

AKA, capitalism.

#138 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2020-01-11 11:39 AM | Reply

Oh and don't remind me, I already know take exit 179 the "Marxist" Democrats were on board with it.

Yes, that is how ignorant you are.

#139 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2020-01-11 11:44 AM | Reply

would you mind telling the class how many private insurance companies to buy insurance from would exist in Marxism.

Quite simple... how did the Soviets under Marxism make TV Tubes.

With "companies" ...
en.wikipedia.org(company)

Marxism still has "companies" you need to now your ideologies in practice, not your utopian vision.

#140 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-01-11 11:45 AM | Reply

Q: how many private insurance companies would exist under Marxism?

A: ____ (fill in the blank)

#141 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2020-01-11 11:49 AM | Reply

#140 has just admitted but they have no idea what they are talking about.

Thank you for your candor, Karen. Take the next left side

#142 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2020-01-11 11:51 AM | Reply

#138 | POSTED BY MRSILENCEDOGOOD

A good system allows failure, the faster the better .... Do I think Banks that hold peoples money be allowed to speculate with that money, certainly not. But you can put your money in banks that don't speculate, that is my advice.

A bad system prevents failure, it keeps the weak companies, bad process, bad management, bad products around ....

Marxism/CronyCapitalism/LargeGovernments keep "companies" around, and falls into a moral hazard situation you describe, "too big to fail", that isn't capitalism.

Truer Capitalism would be more like evolution, allowing success and failure in an ecosystem. Something the logical conclusion of Marxism doesn't allow, which is why it can never work.

#143 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-01-11 11:52 AM | Reply

So what is it called when the government just hands taxpayer money to an institution, say a bank, to keep it afloat?

I'll wait.

#133 | POSTED BY MRSILENCEDOGOOD AT 2020-01-11 11:04 AM | FLAG: Lended to the banks, not given to them:
"within hours of receiving TARP money. Announced on February 2, 2010, that it would repay its TARP loan. ... and Bank of America repaid TARP money. Most banks repaid TARP funds using capital raised from the issuance of equity securities and debt not guaranteed by the federal government."
Troubled Asset Relief Program - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org wiki Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program<>

#144 | Posted by MSgt at 2020-01-11 12:03 PM | Reply

I can't figure out of MrSilence is trolling, is economically illiterate or is just confused.

The guy is all over the place. If there's a point in any of those posts, I don't see it.

#145 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-11 12:06 PM | Reply

Two things I learned early on in my life, from watching my parents' mistakes, are:

* don't spend more money than you have
* don't have more kids than you can afford

That said, the article appears to be drawing an extremely dubious connection.

#146 | Posted by sentinel at 2020-01-11 12:13 PM | Reply

Here's how I see it MrSilence.

I have no issue with the ideas of Marxism, or Socialism. I was raised many years on a commune in the 70's, in the SantaCruz Mountains, spent time at the Yavne Kibbutz in Israel. Learn about the history of the Kibbutz system, and who started them, and why.

I get the appeal, it offers everything Marxism says. A citizen of Yavne has no cash, the Kibbutz shares all its profits with the people, no worries about healthcare as they have doctors for most health issues. They rent a cruise ship in the Caribbean every year for vacation. Yavne pays for college.

The kids are separated in the evening, school so every kid is treated equally.

They all eat at the cafeteria. It truly is the Marxist utopian vision.

My point is, why don't you, and all the people that want this Marxist "vision" just create it here in America? Get to together, buy some land together and do it, start a Co-op. Make some rules and get on with it. I do see the need for such places for certain people.

Why do you need to force it on people that don't want it? Whats the logic there?

#147 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-01-11 12:34 PM | Reply

Here you go MrSilence...

My Life on a Socialist Kibbutz in Brooklyn, and What I Learned There
www.tabletmag.com

Kibbutz-Like Plans Take Shape in Rural America
forward.com

If you are serious about it, go do it, go see how it works ... live it, then you can come back and preach.

Just don't force it on people..... its there if you want it though ...

Welcome to the grand purpose of America!

#148 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-01-11 12:42 PM | Reply

"Yes, that is how ignorant you are."

Me? Ignorant?

You've clearly never stepped foot in a college classroom.

Although it would do you well to try and become less stupid.

#149 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-11 12:44 PM | Reply

"I can't figure out of MrSilence is trolling, is economically illiterate or is just confused."

I would go with all of the above, and add in intoxicated.

#150 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-11 12:45 PM | Reply

"My point is, why don't you, and all the people that want this Marxist "vision" just create it here in America?"

The Democratic Socialists in the US are far less about "let's building something together" than they are "let's take what someone else has already built and make it our own."

I agree with you. There is nothing from stopping dedicated socialists or communists from gathering like minds and engaging in enterprise that aligned with their ideological goals. But that would take effort. It would be work. And your average Democratic Socialist wants none of it. If I recall correctly, Bernie Sanders has never had a real job. He's the standard bearer for an entire movement that, like him, hopes to avoid ever having a real job.

#151 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-11 12:50 PM | Reply

I agree with you. There is nothing from stopping dedicated socialists or communists from gathering like minds and engaging in enterprise that aligned with their ideological goals. But that would take effort. It would be work. And your average Democratic Socialist wants none of it. If I recall correctly, Bernie Sanders has never had a real job. He's the standard bearer for an entire movement that, like him, hopes to avoid ever having a real job.

POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Small communes have been tried in this country on numerous occasions. Most of them failed spectacularly. Heck Bernie Sanders got kicked out of a commune for being lazy.

#152 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-11 12:53 PM | Reply

"If you are serious about it, go do it, go see how it works ... live it, then you can come back and preach."

Hard work in the hot sun?

I don't see Mr. Silence as being the type. Especially if you can vote Bernie and get someone else to do the work for you.

#153 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-11 12:53 PM | Reply

Small communes - JeffJ

They do fail, which was my family's experience, and it was ugly, but the Kibbutz system is pretty solid. You need about 300 people anything less or more is doomed, there are human evolutionary reasons for this. Meaning "communal organizations" don't scale because it requires enormous trust and oversight.

There's no reason Kibbutz couldn't be tried here IMHO, especially a small software Kibbutz.

But that would take effort. It would be work.

This is what I was thinking, but perhaps he would see all the negative, which I didn't point out because as you know, you need to see them first hand to really understand.

Heck Bernie Sanders got kicked out of a commune for being lazy.

This happened too :)

#154 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-01-11 01:22 PM | Reply

"Small communes have been tried in this country on numerous occasions. Most of them failed spectacularly."

There is a reason for that. Socialism succeeds when the productive members of society care more about the well being of others than they do themselves. Like a family. I'm the single income earner in my family, but the money I earn is distributed amongst my family members based on what they want and need. and I'm OK with that because I care more about them then I do myself. But I have zero fxxks to give about Mr. Silence, so why would I ever waste my time engaging in an activity that was going to prop up Mr. Silence. I'd rather just use the time for something that would benefit me.

#155 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-11 01:26 PM | Reply

I don't think hard work is a lifestyle that your average BernieBro is going to subscribe to.

#156 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-11 01:36 PM | Reply

"why would I ever waste my time engaging in an activity that was going to prop up Mr. Silence."

Let's say he can't afford a vaccine. Is it a good idea for society to pick up that tab?

#157 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-01-11 02:13 PM | Reply

"Let's say he can't afford a vaccine. Is it a good idea for society to pick up that tab?
#157 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

For MrSilence and most of the deadbeat libs on here, I suggest a better solution is a debtor island. Maybe after the wildfires, we send them all there if they are criminals, broke, or non-vaccinated.

#158 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2020-01-12 01:59 AM | Reply

Conversely, 5 guys hoarding half a trillion dollars is absolutely sustainable.
#110 | POSTED BY MRSILENCEDOGOOD"

That is basically how it has been since we discovered the written word - it was just in past that they were called kings. I hate to say this, but this is the natural order of things.
#111 | POSTED BY IRAGOLDBERG

LOL.
Money is the natural order of things.
"Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households."
That's only been happening since 1975... but it's also the natural order of things.

#159 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-12 03:21 PM | Reply

"why would I ever waste my time engaging in an activity that was going to prop up Mr. Silence."

You tell us, government worker and government taxpayer.
You tell us.

#160 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-12 03:21 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort