View Full Version : One Set of Facts for Everybody
Melonie
05-14-2009, 03:16 AM
a person develops an expertise on how to minimize one's personal cost of living, at least if s/he has an above-poverty level income and so can be flexible enough.
Obvious action by any intelligent and solvent person. However, in a state like NY that is easier said than done ... because the unpublicized fact is that a large amount of tax is consumption oriented thus affecting rich and poor alike. Besides the issue of state and local sales taxes, you have a host of 'stealth' taxes on everything from gasoline to electric bills to cell phone bills. Then you've got the issue of high property taxes (which directly affect homeowners and indirectly affect renters).
Thus there is already a huge disparity between the amount of 'out of pocket' expenditures required to maintain some minimum standard of living in NY versus maintaining the same minimum standard of living in TX. What is not so obvious is that a significant percentage of people living in NY are simply not able to maintain that minimum standard of living through the fruits of their own skills / labors ... and are thus dependent on the 'generosity' of state and local gov't funded social welfare programs to 'make up the difference'. This is NOT the case in most areas of TX.\
Put in a different context, that significant percentage of NY residents who are not able to maintain a minimum acceptable standard of living without assistance from social welfare programs are exactly analogous to the 'zombie' banks and corporations who are not able to maintain payrolls without the assistance from FED 'bailout' programs. In other words, from a purely down and dirty point of view, both the low skill NY residents and the 'zombie' banks and corporations are technically bankrupt. In today's global economy their 'business model' is unworkable since the true value they are able to add / create is less than the amount needed to 'break even' versus minimal operating expenses.
Thus the only thing preventing these NY residents / 'zombie' banks and corporations from facing an ultimate day of reckoning is the gov'ts ongoing ability to collect and redistribute ever growing amounts of tax revenue from other individuals / corporations which still have a workable business model. Arguably, the point has now arrived where the pool of tax revenue still available from productive individuals / corporations can no longer meet the gov't spending demands of the 'zombie' residents / corporations without making their still workable business models no longer work either ! Put in context, this year some 1.7 TRILLION dollars of unfunded deficit will be added to the US federal budget ... or put another way about 50% of the money that the federal gov't plans on spending this year does not exist and cannot be taxed away from the remaining productive individuals / corporations without 'killing' their business models in the process.
Eric Stoner
05-14-2009, 09:44 AM
That's why it is called INSURANCE. (I figured you knew that.)
You know, it's not always the employee's fault when he is let go and that they deserve to be punished. You imply that you believe that. You know, most people would much prefer to be earning money. If an employer goes out of business and their employees find it difficult to become employed again (as currently), and that former employer's UI 'trust fund' is depleted, the state picks it up (insurance). If the state UI reserve fund runs dry, to me it's a sign of either: (1) the state wasn't taxing high employers enough or (2) many employers have failed, meaning that economic times in the state/nation are pretty bad or (3) the state has used the 'trust fund' for general revenue purposes which is not good.
Well, we could let people beg/steal on the streets and sleep under cardboard boxes, or we as a people could do something about it collectively. Lets us know when this circumstance happens to you. We will probably still help you out.
When one is out of funds, one does not purchase much. So they eventually will fall below the taxable levels. I'm surprised you do not realize this. Again, it's not always their fault and even if it is, we can't have them and their families starving on the streets. UI only works for 6months, unless (rarely) extended. If the average period of unimployment elongates to that, we will have lots of people out on the streets. Try it sometime; it's a lot of fun.
I'm well aware that it's insurance; I know VERY well how insurance works and thus I know that insurance companies go belly up from time to time when claims paid exceed premiums taken in. With or without investment losses.
If the employers are out of business then they can't pay the premiums. If the Unemployment Trust funds were under-funded in a particular state ( as many are) and they are flooded with claimants ( as many are ) they are going to run out of money to pay benefits ( as a few have ).
( I don't know what, if any "investments" were made with those trust funds and what if anything happened to same. In good times with low unemployment, something is done with the money collected.)
I NEVER said or implied any of the callous indifference you somehow attribute to me. Afaic, unemployed workers are, for the most part, innocent victims of bad decisions of others.
I've been unemployed. More than once. I've been flat broke. More than once. I empathize with the unemployed.
I deleted a post that caused YOU some upset even though it was unintentional on my part. Since you like civil discourse when practiced by others, why not try it yourself and avoid the silly personalizing ?
Eric Stoner
05-14-2009, 10:04 AM
Often this is because of lack of education and endemic support they have gotten used to during upbringing.
If people have little education they will not find good jobs or a career. I can tell you that education costs money. I know of no teachers that will teach for no pay. So some money is needed, a fact omitted by you. I believe what you meant is that throwing money at education without directing it at specific, measurable goals is wasteful.
"You think education is expensive? Try ignorance."
I see nowhere that anyone contributing to this thread does not believe that. You often seem to imply that others do not know obvious things and then you argue about them. But you are really only arguing with yourself. This is a technique I've seen you use repeatedly. It is not effective and it is tiresome.
Please re-read Eagle 2's posts and my responses to same . Apparently he does NOT know that employment and economic growth are measures of economic health. He insists on using only average income and the poverty rate. Not everything I post is directed to you.
Eric Stoner
05-14-2009, 10:15 AM
Often this is because of lack of education and endemic support they have gotten used to during upbringing.
If people have little education they will not find good jobs or a career. I can tell you that education costs money. I know of no teachers that will teach for no pay. So some money is needed, a fact omitted by you. I believe what you meant is that throwing money at education without directing it at specific, measurable goals is wasteful.
"You think education is expensive? Try ignorance."
I see nowhere that anyone contributing to this thread does not believe that. You often seem to imply that others do not know obvious things and then you argue about them. But you are really only arguing with yourself. This is a technique I've seen you use repeatedly. It is not effective and it is tiresome.
Charter Schools in NYC have been proven to far more cost effective than schools within the system proper that are entangled with the standard UFT contract. It is causing conniptions with Randi Weingarten and the UFT because mostly minority children have been proven to be capable of learning on a par with their white and wealthier counterparts AND the cost of educating them is actually LESS on a per student basis.
Weingartern's panties have been pulled down so many times that she is desperately trying to stop new Charter Schools, close existing ones and take school control away from the Mayor and return it to the same type of system that created the non functional mess in the first place.
Look at what the Congress did to a very successful voucher program in Washington, D.C. ! They took away funds even though Obama and Duncan pointed to it as a "successful innovation ". Didn't cause them to fight for funding and continuation but they are on the record as approving of it.
threlayer
05-14-2009, 10:55 AM
Weingartern's panties have been pulled down so many times that she is desperately trying to stop Try this in a strip club, buddy, and you'll get slapped up. :)
Let me just say this.... I do not like many of the stands that teachers' unions have taken. I do not like many of the stands that parents have taken either. I have no knowledge of NYC schools, so I am generally stating the above.
threlayer
05-14-2009, 11:00 AM
You often seem to imply that others do not know obvious things and then you argue about them.I stand by that statement. It was not made to insult you or your knowledge or intelligence; it is feedback about your (often condescending) debating technique.
threlayer
05-14-2009, 11:29 AM
[Paraphrasing Mel]...
In NY state the unpublicized fact is that a large amount of tax is consumption oriented: state and local sales taxes, gasoline to electric bills to cell phone bills. Then you've got the issue of high property taxes and income taxes which are not consumption-oriented.
Thus there is already a huge disparity between the same minimum cost of living in NY versus TX.
Low skill NY residents are technically bankrupt because of assistance given them, which is preventing them facing an ultimate day of financial reckoning.
The point has now arrived where tax revenue still available...can no longer meet the gov't spending demands of poor residents...this year... about 50% of the money that the federal gov't plans on spending this year does not exist and cannot be taxed away from the remaining taxpaying individuals without 'killing' businesses in the process.
[/end paraphrase]
Many states also have large direct and indirect taxes on residents. In states that have less taxation, fewer and weaker services are available. I understand you do not need those services, so you left town. The rest of us are here by choice of some kind. Are you trying to tell us that we are wrong and you are right? Because we already know that state taxes and COL vary. We also know that the Feds expenditures are way out of line with tax revenues, especially so with Bush's tax reductions and reduced income taxes. I guess we'll have to see if that lost revenue is recovered when the economy turns around, unless it is permanently crippled. (I assume you believe it is permanently damaged.)
Eric Stoner
05-14-2009, 11:59 AM
I stand by that statement. It was not made to insult you or your knowledge or intelligence; it is feedback about your (often condescending) debating technique.
If I wanted to post a pithy rejoinder it might be something like : " It does get tedious for me to continually state the obvious." But some might take offense and I don't want that. I could also point out that some readers have led very insular lives with very limited reading lists but that might be insulting and I don't want to insult anybody.
However I admittedly have little patience or use for closed minds and those who insist on clinging to outmoded and disproven theories and ideas. And that goes for both sides of the political aisle. For me, some of the most infuriating things about Bush were: his lack of curiosity; his elevation of faith over facts and his valuing loyalty over competence.
Right now I'm joining Jon Stewart in gleefully watching Pelosi try to pull up her panties over her ever-changing story about getting briefed by the CIA. Btw, I didn't pull them down. She Did ! Over and over again.
Eric Stoner
05-14-2009, 12:14 PM
[Paraphrasing Mel]...
In NY state the unpublicized fact is that a large amount of tax is consumption oriented: state and local sales taxes, gasoline to electric bills to cell phone bills. Then you've got the issue of high property taxes and income taxes which are not consumption-oriented.
Thus there is already a huge disparity between the same minimum cost of living in NY versus TX.
Low skill NY residents are technically bankrupt because of assistance given them, which is preventing them facing an ultimate day of financial reckoning.
The point has now arrived where tax revenue still available...can no longer meet the gov't spending demands of poor residents...this year... about 50% of the money that the federal gov't plans on spending this year does not exist and cannot be taxed away from the remaining taxpaying individuals without 'killing' businesses in the process.
[/end paraphrase]
Many states also have large direct and indirect taxes on residents. In states that have less taxation, fewer and weaker services are available. I understand you do not need those services, so you left town. The rest of us are here by choice of some kind. Are you trying to tell us that we are wrong and you are right? Because we already know that state taxes and COL vary. We also know that the Feds expenditures are way out of line with tax revenues, especially so with Bush's tax reductions and reduced income taxes. I guess we'll have to see if that lost revenue is recovered when the economy turns around, unless it is permanently crippled. (I assume you believe it is permanently damaged.)
Who is blaming the recipients of essential services ? I'm not. Melonie isn't . You keep trying to put words in her (and my) mouth to make it appear that we are trying to blame the victims. We blame the misguided policies; the wasteful spenders; the political incest and NOT the recipients of taxpayer benevolence.
I haven't left New York and have no plans to do so. As I've posted, the only viable alternative for me is N.J. and that is just as bad now and promises to be even worse than N.Y. in the future.
You seem to think ( and please correct me if I am misunderstanding you) that higher Federal marginal tax rates will increase revenues. How do you explain the serious INCREASE in revenues after Bush's tax cuts ? If we taxed the top 1 % or even 5% of earners at 100%; took every dime they made in 2009 it would not make a serious dent in the current deficit. So just how much do you think repealing the Bush tax cuts will accomplish ? And that's WITHOUT "Obamacare" btw.
threlayer
05-14-2009, 12:34 PM
^^ that was in answer to Mel's post.
Eric, I know that is your technique of debating, ever since we posted in Political Poo. Maybe some don't read much or only read what they believe. If I need to know something, I will look it up, not ask you. I mostly read what I don't believe. Sometimes it broadens my outlook, but mostly it leaves me shaking my head.
Higher fed tax rates will increase revenues up and until it becomes onerous. One can try to argue that it is already onerous, and that same person would probably argue the same if it were one third as much as present. Such an argument would hold no water. Remember it was not high tax rates that cause this 'recession'; it was 'not minding the store.'
I don't care for Pelosi either. The House would be better served with someone not as partisan or as far from center. But that's not how it works there.
Eric Stoner
05-14-2009, 12:53 PM
^^ that was in answer to Mel's post.
Eric, I know that is your technique of debating, ever since we posted in Political Poo. Maybe some don't read much or only read what they believe. If I need to know something, I will look it up, not ask you. I mostly read what I don't believe. Sometimes it broadens my outlook, but mostly it leaves me shaking my head.
Higher fed tax rates will increase revenues up and until it becomes onerous. One can try to argue that it is already onerous, and that same person would probably argue the same if it were one third as much as present. Such an argument would hold no water. Remember it was not high tax rates that cause this 'recession'; it was 'not minding the store.'
I don't care for Pelosi either. The House would be better served with someone not as partisan or as far from center. But that's not how it works there.
I have never posted in Political Poo. It was closed four (4) years ago.
I don't know or care how some people get their ideas. Whether they cook them up themselves; get them from the media; from the politically infected universities; whatever. It matters not. What matters afaic is whether or not they have factual support. I'm in full agreement with the late ( and sometimes great) Pat Moynihan:
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts."
That's why I entitled this thread what I did and why I posted it in the first place. Afaic there is too much doctrinaire drivel floating around from BOTH the right and the left that lacks factual support. Particularly in matters "economic".
You're correct that it was not " high taxes" that caused the recession. By the same token, tax cuts didn't cause it either. And raising taxes and increasing transfers of wealth from the productive to the unproductive is not going to cause it to abate.
Melonie
05-14-2009, 02:10 PM
Who is blaming the recipients of essential services ? I'm not. Melonie isn't . You keep trying to put words in her (and my) mouth to make it appear that we are trying to blame the victims. We blame the misguided policies; the wasteful spenders; the political incest and NOT the recipients of taxpayer benevolence.
Thank you for stating this ! Indeed I am not trying to blame any 'poor' person who decides to immigrate from, say, Florida to New York because the NY social welfare benefits available provide a significantly higher standard of living. I am blaming the NY politicians who established the extremely generous social welfare benefit levels which are attracting 'poor' immigrants, and which are driving out upper middle class taxpayers who are saddled with the increasing 'tab' for these generous benefits.
You seem to think ( and please correct me if I am misunderstanding you) that higher Federal marginal tax rates will increase revenues. How do you explain the serious INCREASE in revenues after Bush's tax cuts ? If we taxed the top 1 % or even 5% of earners at 100%; took every dime they made in 2009 it would not make a serious dent in the current deficit. So just how much do you think repealing the Bush tax cuts will accomplish ? And that's WITHOUT "Obamacare" btw.
Again there needs to be one set of facts for everybody. In point of historical fact, increasing tax rates on individuals and businesses almost always results in a reduction in total tax revenues. Cutting tax rates on individuals and businesses almost always results in an increase in total tax revenues.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/images/58872464.gif
(snip)"The economic response to the Kennedy tax cuts demonstrated that you cannot have a dynamic economy if venture capital is penalised, entrepreneurial mobility severely restricted and the rewards of successfully satisfying consumers' needs are heavily taxed. In 1969, for example, President Nixon raised the capital gains tax from 28 per cent to 49 per cent. Result: revenue from the tax dropped sharply with realised gains from the sale of capital assets falling by 34 per cent, and the stock issues of struggling companies falling from about 500 in 1969 to precisely four in 1975. High-tech companies in Silicon Valley were hit particularly hard. Yet the Treasury had assured President Nixon that the tax increase would raise $1.1 billion in the first year and then $3.2 billion a year until 1975. This is obvious proof that taxes do affect behaviour. If you think about it, capital gains taxes are a great way to soak the poor.
In 1978 Congress for once did the sensible thing and slashed capital gains taxes: this resulted in the supply of venture capital exploding. By the start of 1979 a massive commitment to venture capital funds had taken place, rising from a pathetic $39 million in 1977 to a staggering $570 million at the end of 1978. Tax collections on long-term capital gains, despite the dire predictions of Keynesian big-spending critics of tax cuts, leapt from $8.5 billion in 1978 to $10.6 billion in 1979, $16.5 billion in 1983 and $23.7 billion in 1985."(snip)
from
threlayer
05-14-2009, 07:50 PM
NYS historically has provided lots of benefits for the poor. For one thing historically it has been the entrance popint for many immigrants coming to the US with nothing. Of course that is largely over now. I knew it was a high taxation state when I moved here, but that was before the onerous Medicaid system which has made it all the worse financially.
People are free to move wherever. A lot of them stay here for the benefits, I'm sure; and that's a problem. But there are a lot worse states to live in than NY, depending on one's values.
eagle2
05-15-2009, 12:30 AM
Wow-I've been floating around the Cay for a couple of days and seemed to have missed a whole lot of excitement.
That is true for the unskilled workers who still have jobs at higher minimum wage pay rates. It is not true for newly unemployed unskilled workers who now have no job as a result of a minimum wage hike. Again the heart of the matter is the differential between the all-in cost of US minimum wage labor and the cost of foreign unskilled labor or automation. As that differential widens, employers are forced to change their business model to counteract rising US labor costs. Arguably this is the very reason that thousands of two gas pump convenience marts have permanently closed ... in favor of fewer 12 pump convenience marts with proportionately fewer minimum wage employees. Arguably this is the very reason that WalMart invested in self-serve checkout machines where 6 machines can be supervised by a single human checkout clerk. Arguably this is the reason that phone banks have been farmed out to India, the reason that vegetables are now grown in Mexico etc. The higher that the US / state gov'ts raise this differential, the stronger the incentive for US / state employers to eliminate minimum wage jobs and the fewer the employment opportunities will be for low skill US / state workers.
Again you’re making statements based on conservative ideology, not facts. The minimum wage has been raised numerous times at the state and federal level, with little impact on the unemployment rate. When the minimum wage was raised in 1998, the unemployment rate decreased the following year.
At the stores I’ve been to with self-service checkout machines, they don’t reduce the number of workers, they increase the number of machines to reduce time customers have to wait in line. At the grocery stores I go to, they replace one cash register with four self-service checkout machines. There is no reduction is staff as a result of these machines.
The most likely reason there are more 12 pump convenience marts than 2 pump convenience marts, is to increase revenue and decrease wait time for customers. Most of them are self-service and have little effect on the number of employees.
Most food in the US comes from American farms. The US is still the world leader in agriculture, although the vast majority of farm laborers are from Mexico because most Americans don’t want to do that type of work.
To keep this short, I'll state that I agree with Eric's proposals in general. In fact I agree with any proposal that provides strong incentive for self-improvement and oppose any program that does not (or worse provides a 'moral hazard' disincentive which encourages the poor and uneducated to remain poor and uneducated). I also support any program that is temporary, and oppose any program that is permanent. I also support any program that incentivizes 'desireable' behavior (like returning to school) and oppose any program that incentivizes 'undesireable' behavior (like pumping out kids to increase the size of the monthly welfare check).
Since 1996, there has been a limit as to how long someone can stay on welfare.
There are many issues which need further scrutiny when trying to compare the 'real world' standard of living of someone earning $50k in Jersey versus $37k in Texas. First, the difference in disposable income is far less than $13k, because NJ has an income tax and TX does not - also sale tax rates and property tax rates (and their embedded effect on rents) are far higher in NJ. Yes NJ spends far more money per capita on social welfare benefits and public services than TX. However, in general, someone earning $50k a year is not eligible for most of them ! As to NJ schools versus TX schools, check the fine print on public versus private schools. You'll find that NJ public schools preform worse that TX public schools ... but the statistics are skewed because NJ has a far more evolved 'two tier' system of private schools which TX does not (or at least to nowhere near the same degree in terms of % of total enrollment).
The average person in Texas pays $1,704 in taxes. The average person in New Jersey pays $3,355 in taxes.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/289.html
I’d rather make the $50,000 a year and pay an extra $1,600 in taxes.
All I can say about NJ in general is that, as a former resident of West Paterson, anybody who bothers to drive the 2 miles between Paterson and West Paterson, or Newark and Caldwell, or any major NJ city versus its 'upscale' suburb, will see far more disparaty than anywhere in Texas that is farther than 10 miles beyond the Mexican border.
New Jersey’s poverty is more concentrated, but it doesn’t change the fact that Texas’ poverty rate is twice as high as New Jersey’s.
Melonie
05-15-2009, 03:36 AM
At the grocery stores I go to, they replace one cash register with four self-service checkout machines. There is no reduction is staff as a result of these machines
More like replacing two cash registers ( and two clerks) with four self-service checkout machines ( and one clerk ).
The most likely reason there are more 12 pump convenience marts than 2 pump convenience marts, is to increase revenue and decrease wait time for customers. Most of them are self-service and have little effect on the number of employees.
Typically each convenience mart must have at least one employee on premisis. Large convenience marts usually have two. So the closure of 6 small convenience marts and the opening of two large convenience marts in their place results in a net loss of 2 minimum wage jobs.
The minimum wage has been raised numerous times at the state and federal level, with little impact on the unemployment rate
since official unemployment statistics stop counting unemployed people who remain unemployed beyond the 26 / 39 week unemployment benefit limit I don't doubt that your statement is true. However this does not mean that the number of permanently unemployed low skill workers hasn't increased. THAT statistic isn't directly measured, but U6 and percentage of population collecting food stamps have both increased since the minimum wage was increased in 2007.
New Jersey’s poverty is more concentrated, but it doesn’t change the fact that Texas’ poverty rate is twice as high as New Jersey’s
Again a questionable official gov't statistic ... which defines 'poverty' by a derived income level statistic. This does not actually measure standard of living.
The average person in Texas pays $1,704 in taxes. The average person in New Jersey pays $3,355 in taxes.
again another 'damned statistic' which uses US Census Bureau methodology and only counts 'direct' tax collections. NJ residents also wind up having significant amounts of 'stealth' taxes which are indirectly collected ... from higher rents ( due to higher property tax rates on landlords), to higher gasoline cost, to higher utility bill cost, to a higher cost for cigarettes and beer ... that are ignored.
Melonie
05-15-2009, 03:42 AM
by sheer coincidence, this news story was just released ... which provides an 'objective' example of the impact of a rising minimum wage on the untimate employment levels / standard of living of low skill workers. In this case, the massive labor cost increase resulting from the minimum wage hike prompted the corporation to abandon a low-tech cannery with its 2000 unskilled jobs, in favor of constructing a new high tech cannery creating 200 higher skill level jobs to produce the same number of cans of tuna. In terms of low skill minimum wage jobs change, odds are this went from 2000+ to near zero !
(snip)"Chicken of the Sea, the tuna company, has just announced the closing of its canning plant in American Samoa in September. The chief culprit is 2007 legislation in Washington that gradually increased the islands' minimum wage until it reaches $7.25 an hour, effective July 2009, almost double the 2007 levels.
So, this summer, some of the 68,000 residents of this United States territory will celebrate the higher minimum wage. Their ranks are unlikely to include people who now hold the 2,041 jobs—12 percent of total employment, almost half of all cannery workers—to be lost when the cannery closes. And the 2,700 employees of Star Kist, the other American Samoa tuna canning company, will be hoping that they keep their jobs.
American Samoa’s loss is Georgia’s gain. Chicken of the Sea will move to Lyons, Georgia, (2007 population 4,480) employing 200 people in a new $20 million plant on a more capital-intensive production line.
It didn’t have to be this way. In January 2007, when Congress debated the bill that raised the federal minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 over a two-year period, the legislation originally did not include American Samoa. Until then, the Labor Department had set wage rates in American Samoa every two years, following an extensive study of economic conditions on the island. But before final passage, Congress included American Samoa.
The result was a big wage boost for residents of American Samoa. In 2007, the hourly minimum wage for fish canning and processing was $3.76. The minimum wage for government employees was $3.41. Shipping had the highest minimum wage, at $4.59. Garment manufacturers got the lowest, at $3.18 an hour.
Back in 2007 there might have been general rejoicing in American Samoa on hearing that many workers would get a raise. But not so. Governor Togiola Tulafono worried that increasing the minimum wage “would kill the economy” and Congressional Samoan Delegate Eni F.H. Faleomavaega forecast that it would devastate the local tuna industry.
Fans of minimum wage increases say the hikes have no depressing effect on the economy or on jobs, but American Samoans were smarter. They knew that industries would go elsewhere if they have to pay $7.25 an hour.
And they were right. American Samoa will lose not only the 2,041 jobs at the Chicken of the Sea canning plant, but also secondary jobs from the ripple effect of loss of income—stores and eateries that cater to cannery workers, shops that mend fishing nets, shipyards, and buses that transport workers.
In addition, the cost of goods sold on the island will rise, because the ships that exported the cans of tuna came back with products to sell to the American Samoans. Now ships with imports to American Samoa will have to return empty or stop at other destinations. "(snip)
~
Eric Stoner
05-15-2009, 07:13 AM
For Melonie and Eagle- Unemployment has proven to be a rather nebulous statistic. The rate most often cited is the U.S. Department of Labor "Unemployment Rate" which only counts people receiving unemployment benefits. Once they stop receiving benefits, whether they go back to work or just give up looking, they are no longer counted.
Another statistic is the Household Survey which measures how many people in a particular household are actually working. If "Dad" got laid off but "Mom" and "Junior" and "Princess" are all working, that gets recorded. It also includes part time, seasonal and casual employment.
A third stat is the Employment rate. It measures total employment across the country. Both public and private.
A fourth is the "New Jobs" rate. It measures creation of new jobs that did not exist before.
A fifth is "New Hires". These are people hired to fill existing jobs like replacing retirees and people who were fired or left voluntarily. A very good way to gauge the current health of the economy is to subtract "New Unemployment" claims from "New Hires" and "New Jobs". Obviously if more people are getting hired than are getting laid off it's better than the converse.
I've been trying to find a statistic that measures employment of illegals. If someone can point to something besides the usual "estimates", I'd appreciate it. We also have the underground economy where many a dancer dwells. Again, afaik it is hard to measure beyond various estimates.
Eric Stoner
05-15-2009, 07:29 AM
When I was in high school and college I did all sorts of work currently done primarily by illegal immigrants. I was a dishwasher, a busboy and did food prep. I cleaned houses, stores and buildings and did landscaping. I parked cars at a catering hall. It wasn't all that long ago.
I for one would be willing to pay a couple bucks more at the car wash and pay my landscaper a little bit more per month to see them use LEGAL labor. Isn't it odd, that the only "restaurants " where everyone is "legal" are the fast food joints like Subway, Dunkin Donuts and "Micky D's". The rest all use illegals. And some of the worst exploitation occurs in the restaurants.
Eric Stoner
05-15-2009, 07:53 AM
by sheer coincidence, this news story was just released ... which provides an 'objective' example of the impact of a rising minimum wage on the untimate employment levels / standard of living of low skill workers. In this case, the massive labor cost increase resulting from the minimum wage hike prompted the corporation to abandon a low-tech cannery with its 2000 unskilled jobs, in favor of constructing a new high tech cannery creating 200 higher skill level jobs to produce the same number of cans of tuna. In terms of low skill minimum wage jobs change, odds are this went from 2000+ to near zero !
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/05/the_minimum_wage_and_its_emplo.html
(snip)"Chicken of the Sea, the tuna company, has just announced the closing of its canning plant in American Samoa in September. The chief culprit is 2007 legislation in Washington that gradually increased the islands' minimum wage until it reaches $7.25 an hour, effective July 2009, almost double the 2007 levels.
So, this summer, some of the 68,000 residents of this United States territory will celebrate the higher minimum wage. Their ranks are unlikely to include people who now hold the 2,041 jobs—12 percent of total employment, almost half of all cannery workers—to be lost when the cannery closes. And the 2,700 employees of Star Kist, the other American Samoa tuna canning company, will be hoping that they keep their jobs.
American Samoa’s loss is Georgia’s gain. Chicken of the Sea will move to Lyons, Georgia, (2007 population 4,480) employing 200 people in a new $20 million plant on a more capital-intensive production line.
It didn’t have to be this way. In January 2007, when Congress debated the bill that raised the federal minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 over a two-year period, the legislation originally did not include American Samoa. Until then, the Labor Department had set wage rates in American Samoa every two years, following an extensive study of economic conditions on the island. But before final passage, Congress included American Samoa.
The result was a big wage boost for residents of American Samoa. In 2007, the hourly minimum wage for fish canning and processing was $3.76. The minimum wage for government employees was $3.41. Shipping had the highest minimum wage, at $4.59. Garment manufacturers got the lowest, at $3.18 an hour.
Back in 2007 there might have been general rejoicing in American Samoa on hearing that many workers would get a raise. But not so. Governor Togiola Tulafono worried that increasing the minimum wage “would kill the economy” and Congressional Samoan Delegate Eni F.H. Faleomavaega forecast that it would devastate the local tuna industry.
Fans of minimum wage increases say the hikes have no depressing effect on the economy or on jobs, but American Samoans were smarter. They knew that industries would go elsewhere if they have to pay $7.25 an hour.
And they were right. American Samoa will lose not only the 2,041 jobs at the Chicken of the Sea canning plant, but also secondary jobs from the ripple effect of loss of income—stores and eateries that cater to cannery workers, shops that mend fishing nets, shipyards, and buses that transport workers.
In addition, the cost of goods sold on the island will rise, because the ships that exported the cans of tuna came back with products to sell to the American Samoans. Now ships with imports to American Samoa will have to return empty or stop at other destinations. "(snip)
~
First of all, it has never been proven to my satisfaction that modest increases in the minimum wage seriously affect employment. The argument makes sense on a theoretical basis but actual experience shows that the costs are just passed along to the consumer because the wage goes up for everybody i.e. all employers have to pay it.
Secondly, American Samoa has been an economic basket case and political cesspool for decades. A few years ago, Tom DeLay and Nancy Pelosi rammed through an exemption for canners in American Samoa from increases in the minimum wage. By an amazing coincidence, they both took hefty campaign contributions from the canners affected.
Two big reasons "C. O. T. S." is relocating to Georgia are hefty tax breaks and much lower shipping costs
Melonie
05-15-2009, 08:06 AM
I'm sorry that you are not satisfied !!!
(snip)"Research at Michigan State University found that increases in the minimum wage attract more highly skilled applicants to traditionally low-skill jobs. The study's author, David Neumark, concluded: "Increases in the minimum wage ... raise the probability that more-skilled teenagers leave school and displace lower-skilled workers from their jobs." Employers prefer to hire talented young people over less-skilled adults to offset the increased labor costs brought on by a minimum wage increase.
Another study, from the University of Wisconsin, revealed that this displacement of adults by teenagers following a minimum-wage increase was especially pronounced among women on welfare. "Mothers on welfare in states that raised their minimum wage left welfare for work 20 percent less than welfare recipients in states where the minimum wage was not raised," the study's author, Peter Brandon, found. The teenagers who are competing with these women usually live with working parents and their need for employment is arguably not as great.
Even wage-increase proponents acknowledge this displacement effect. Wage mandate activist and union organizer David Reynolds says that high minimum wages cause businesses to "attract and retain the best workers" -- who take the jobs of the less skilled. The union-backed Economic Policy Institute has admitted that higher minimum wages "will attract good workers" -- meaning less-skilled workers need not apply.
Yet while less-skilled workers do not benefit from a minimum-wage increase, academic research demonstrates they can get a raise without one. Economists at Miami University of Ohio and Florida State University found 65 percent of minimum-wage workers increase their wage between one and 12 months on the job. This refutes the outdated notion of minimum-wage workers perpetually dependent on government to get a raise.
More than undermining their prospects for employment, raising the minimum wage imperils an important benefit that helps less-skilled workers escape poverty. The federal earned-income tax credit is a successful anti-poverty program that supplements the income of the working poor. But it disappears the moment employees lose their job, forcing the least skilled among us to depend on welfare for as long as those benefits last.
Exchanging the ability to provide for oneself with welfare checks has unfortunate consequences that reach far beyond the newly unemployed person's pocketbook. Research by Casey Mulligan of the University of Chicago found that for every extra year a mother spent on welfare, her child spent an additional 274 days on welfare as an adult. Sad to say, raising the minimum wage not only harms the job prospects of those whose alternative is welfare but also their ability to pass a strong work ethic onto their children."(snip)
from
Eric Stoner
05-15-2009, 09:46 AM
I'm sorry that you are not satisfied !!!
(snip)"Research at Michigan State University found that increases in the minimum wage attract more highly skilled applicants to traditionally low-skill jobs. The study's author, David Neumark, concluded: "Increases in the minimum wage ... raise the probability that more-skilled teenagers leave school and displace lower-skilled workers from their jobs." Employers prefer to hire talented young people over less-skilled adults to offset the increased labor costs brought on by a minimum wage increase.
Another study, from the University of Wisconsin, revealed that this displacement of adults by teenagers following a minimum-wage increase was especially pronounced among women on welfare. "Mothers on welfare in states that raised their minimum wage left welfare for work 20 percent less than welfare recipients in states where the minimum wage was not raised," the study's author, Peter Brandon, found. The teenagers who are competing with these women usually live with working parents and their need for employment is arguably not as great.
Even wage-increase proponents acknowledge this displacement effect. Wage mandate activist and union organizer David Reynolds says that high minimum wages cause businesses to "attract and retain the best workers" -- who take the jobs of the less skilled. The union-backed Economic Policy Institute has admitted that higher minimum wages "will attract good workers" -- meaning less-skilled workers need not apply.
Yet while less-skilled workers do not benefit from a minimum-wage increase, academic research demonstrates they can get a raise without one. Economists at Miami University of Ohio and Florida State University found 65 percent of minimum-wage workers increase their wage between one and 12 months on the job. This refutes the outdated notion of minimum-wage workers perpetually dependent on government to get a raise.
More than undermining their prospects for employment, raising the minimum wage imperils an important benefit that helps less-skilled workers escape poverty. The federal earned-income tax credit is a successful anti-poverty program that supplements the income of the working poor. But it disappears the moment employees lose their job, forcing the least skilled among us to depend on welfare for as long as those benefits last.
Exchanging the ability to provide for oneself with welfare checks has unfortunate consequences that reach far beyond the newly unemployed person's pocketbook. Research by Casey Mulligan of the University of Chicago found that for every extra year a mother spent on welfare, her child spent an additional 274 days on welfare as an adult. Sad to say, raising the minimum wage not only harms the job prospects of those whose alternative is welfare but also their ability to pass a strong work ethic onto their children."(snip)
from http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/153901_unemploy26.html
First of all, thank you for sharing that BUT it does not address the usual argument of the Chamber of Commerce types that increases in the minimum wage increase unemployment because employers will not hire the extra worker or will lay off workers etc. What your sources are saying is that an increased minimum wage entices people to work. Well Duh ! Surprised ? Surprised that if it pays to work that people will do so ?
If I understand this right, we are supposed to have a low minimum wage so welfare mothers won't have to compete against high school kids for entry level , low skilled jobs ? Who is going to do the work while those kids are in school ?
How much skill does a welfare Mom need to work at Wal-Mart ?
Melonie
05-15-2009, 11:32 AM
If I understand this right, we are supposed to have a low minimum wage so welfare mothers won't have to compete against high school kids for entry level , low skilled jobs ?
I assume that the 'displacement' reference was actually to new high school graduates who are not immediately going on to college. In that sense, from an prospective employer's viewpoint it would indeed make more sense to hire an energetic young person with a reasonable level of basic math & reading skills - provided that there were no real employer considerations re long term employment prospects of the newly hired minimum wage employee. From the recent high school graduate's point of view, if the minimum wage was $6 an hour they would be logically inclined to look harder for a higher paying entry level semi-skilled job, but at $8 an hour minimum wage they are more inclined to settle for the first job that is offered. In contrast, the 22 year old high school dropout single mother would not be considered qualified for a higher paying entry level semi-skilled job.
BUT it does not address the usual argument of the Chamber of Commerce types that increases in the minimum wage increase unemployment because employers will not hire the extra worker or will lay off workers etc
I refrained from trying to post this sort if stuff (again) because there really aren't any authoritatively documented reports ... it's mostly incidental stuff i.e. workshop for the handicapped forced to lay off 20% of minimum wage workers due to minimum wage increase but constant budget ... or former tomato farm switches to corn ( and invests in automatic harvesting machinery thus not needing to engage the 100 migrant farm workers who were previously needed to pick tomatoes) ... or a call center begins outsourcing work to Mumbai ( thus permanently laying off 80% of minimum wage workers at its US call center). Similar anecdotal stuff regarding businesses paying overtime to fewer minimum wage workers (or simply driving existing workers harder to accomplish more work in less time) rather than adding more minimum wage workers, businesses choosing not to expand because their reinvestment budget was cut into by rising minimum wage labor costs, businesses remaining open fewer hours per day thus eliminating minimum wage labor costs during 'less profitable' times of the day, and many many other 'buckshot' examples.
If one didn't know better (ahem), one would think that the lack of official gov't statistics re minimum wage employees, and the dearth of news media reporting on minimum wage employees, wasn't a pure coincidence. Of course a story as large as the Samoan cannery closing was impossible to bury.
It's possible to find official statistics like this ...
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SEquGdespvI/AAAAAAAAExk/apthmt3hZAY/s400/unage.bmp
... which would appear to show a very strong correlation between the effective date of a minimum wage increase and a spike in the unemployment rate of particular sectors of US workers. However, die-hard proponents of increasing the minimum wage will simply attempt to 'blame' these highly coincidental rising unemployment statistics on other causes.
~
Eric Stoner
05-15-2009, 12:17 PM
I assume that the 'displacement' reference was actually to new high school graduates who are not immediately going on to college. In that sense, from an prospective employer's viewpoint it would indeed make more sense to hire an energetic young person with a reasonable level of basic math & reading skills - provided that there were no real employer considerations re long term employment prospects of the newly hired minimum wage employee. From the recent high school graduate's point of view, if the minimum wage was $6 an hour they would be logically inclined to look harder for a higher paying entry level semi-skilled job, but at $8 an hour minimum wage they are more inclined to settle for the first job that is offered. In contrast, the 22 year old high school dropout single mother would not be considered qualified for a higher paying entry level semi-skilled job.
I refrained from trying to post this sort if stuff (again) because there really aren't any authoritatively documented reports ... it's mostly incidental stuff i.e. workshop for the handicapped forced to lay off 20% of minimum wage workers due to minimum wage increase but constant budget ... or former tomato farm switches to corn ( and invests in automatic harvesting machinery thus not needing to engage the 100 migrant farm workers who were previously needed to pick tomatoes) ... or a call center begins outsourcing work to Mumbai ( thus permanently laying off 80% of minimum wage workers at its US call center). Similar anecdotal stuff regarding businesses paying overtime to fewer minimum wage workers (or simply driving existing workers harder to accomplish more work in less time) rather than adding more minimum wage workers, businesses choosing not to expand because their reinvestment budget was cut into by rising minimum wage labor costs, businesses remaining open fewer hours per day thus eliminating minimum wage labor costs during 'less profitable' times of the day, and many many other 'buckshot' examples.
If one didn't know better (ahem), one would think that the lack of official gov't statistics re minimum wage employees, and the dearth of news media reporting on minimum wage employees, wasn't a pure coincidence. Of course a story as large as the Samoan cannery closing was impossible to bury.
It's possible to find official statistics like this ...
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SEquGdespvI/AAAAAAAAExk/apthmt3hZAY/s400/unage.bmp
... which would appear to show a very strong correlation between the effective date of a minimum wage increase and a spike in the unemployment rate of particular sectors of US workers. However, die-hard proponents of increasing the minimum wage will simply attempt to 'blame' these highly coincidental rising unemployment statistics on other causes.
~
Well, there are plenty of statistics showing that lack of a high school diploma is the fast lane to a lifetime of poverty. The definitive studies on avoiding poverty ( graduate high school; don't marry or get pregnant before age 21 and stay out of jail ) were done at both Princeton and Yale. So a high school diploma ( and presumably the ability to read , write and do math at a minimum of the 10th Grade
level ) would obviously provide greater job opportunities than the lack of same.
Likewise, if one were persistent and ambitious enough to at least graduate high school then it wouldn't be surprising that such a person would look to move up and take advantage of the opportunity to do so. Additionally, a young worker living at home without children of their own might indeed look like a more desirable employee.
I have seen a couple of studies that if the minimum wage were pushed to the ridiculous levels advocated by some ( $10 ; $15 and even $20 an hour ) that it would be disastrous for the working poor and would result in decreased employment. The minimum wage is not and was never intended to really provide a "living" wage. Experience has proven that most workers receive minimum wage for a year or less. They move up and get raises; they finish as trainees and qualify for a better rate of pay etc.
More and more the real disparity is between what the average H.S. grad earns and what college graduates earn. A college degree has become the new diploma of choice for real earning power in a modern economy. Even many jobs like police and fire in many major cities now require at least some college.
eagle2
05-15-2009, 03:59 PM
It's possible to find official statistics like this ...
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SEquGdespvI/AAAAAAAAExk/apthmt3hZAY/s400/unage.bmp
... which would appear to show a very strong correlation between the effective date of a minimum wage increase and a spike in the unemployment rate of particular sectors of US workers. However, die-hard proponents of increasing the minimum wage will simply attempt to 'blame' these highly coincidental rising unemployment statistics on other causes.
~
No it doesn't. The minimum wage was increased on 07/24/2007. Within 5 months, the unemployment rate for 16-19 year olds was lower than it was before the minimum wage was increased. The most likely reason for the significant increase in unemployment in the 2nd quarter of 2008 for 16-19 year olds was the start of a recession. Younger workers have the least seniority and are most likely to be laid off first.
threlayer
05-16-2009, 11:04 AM
For stripping, there is no education required or needed (or mostly so). It is mainly on-the-job training. Many here have shown a lot of ambition and foresight (and that's what is so attractive about my being a SW member), but your average stripper is largely unskilled, under-the-table worker, except for their ability seducing the cash out of men's wallets for several years, which does take a 'little' training.
So there's at least one occupation that can bring significant income to a portion of women, many of whom are otherwise unskilled.
Eric Stoner
05-18-2009, 08:59 AM
No it doesn't. The minimum wage was increased on 07/24/2007. Within 5 months, the unemployment rate for 16-19 year olds was lower than it was before the minimum wage was increased. The most likely reason for the significant increase in unemployment in the 2nd quarter of 2008 for 16-19 year olds was the start of a recession. Younger workers have the least seniority and are most likely to be laid off first.
I have to agreee with this.
I've TRIED to find real, actual data that supports the supposition that modest increases in the minimum wage result in higher unemployment. I've heard plenty of anecdotal claims that it results in lay-offs or refusals to hire, but I haven't seen definitive studies that actually show the correlation. Just to be clear, I'm talking about moderate incremental increases and not the sort of quantum leaps that some advocate.