It's not exactly clear yet what the requirements will be and if architecture interns will be affected or not, but if the income threshold is raised, it may require employers to pay 1.5 hourly rate for overtime hours above 40 hours per week for a significant number of interns.
Honestly as someone who has grown up working in the family business with supermarkets and currently working in investment banking and looking to transition to architecture eventually. I've seen and worked in small local business to corporate America, I really do not believe it is the governments' responsibility to dictate these things when consenting grown adults have the ability to. That goes for our Architecture profession as well as it is still looking for a way/new identity post-recession. This is one thing that the Gov't should just stay out of. As LITS4FormZ said, the less will be reaping the benefits.
At a previous firm, whenever I was closing in on over 40 hour week spans, I was magically a salaried employee. Projects dying down and looking like less than 40 hours I was back to hourly.
Forcing employers to pay more means less will be reaping the benefits.
i don't agree with this, but i suppose the only way we'll know is to have obama set stricter guidelines and then see what happens.
somebody has to do the work. if that means the people complaining have to quit complaining a while and do the work themselves instead of under-paying some lacky to do it, then that isn't so bad. at least not in my mind. if they still want to have someone else doing the work while they complain about it, then they'll just have to keep less for themselves and pay those people a bit more.
when the people actually working for a living have more to spend, that will stimulate the economy more than having already wealthy people hoarding more wealth, because people who work for a living typically spend what money they have. that means more people paying for goods and services, which means the people complaining about paying their employees a reasonable living wage might get more business, allowing them to expand their business and hire more people.
Yeah sure Miles Jaffe, just go on ahead and make some blatant fact-less assumption because of something you did not like hearing. With a response like that, you seem the type that no matter what you blame republicans for everything irregardless of facts (and I do not consider myself a Repub, just sick of the rhetoric from mindless loyalists). Think about it like this, if minimum wage is raised to desired number. Besides crazy inflation, what about the more experienced employees that were close to that wage? Not only will they feel slapped in the face but they will want to have higher wages to distant themselves from the min wage people.
By tying the overtime rule to a minimum weekly/annual income, it basically doesn't make a difference whether you are classified as hourly or salary; you are de facto hourly. Currently anyone making less than $455/week ($23,660/year) has to be paid 1.5x hourly wage for hours worked over 40 hours per week. If, say, Obama raised that minimum threshold to $800/week (or $41,600 annually), anyone making less than that would have to be paid overtime at 1.5x hourly wage. Therefore, interns who are typically hired in between $30-40k annually would all have to be paid overtime by federal law.
Lance, I call out bullshit when I see it. No need to get offended.
FYI that was not an assumption, it is an ironic fact. Why hasn't the minimum wage been doubled? Why does Mitt Romney pay 11% tax on $250m income when my FICA alone is 15.6%? Why do banks get $65b a month interest free to invest however they want?
What exactly is the government's job? Aside from sucking corporate dick for all it's worth and shitting on citizens.
i'm not miles, but i'll offer 'protect the governed'
you could say 'fulfill the social contract' if you were of the mind to see things that way
obviously 'take advantage of the disadvantaged to favor the wealthy' is not the job of government. then again, maybe that isn't as obvious as i might think.
Miles, I actually do agree with you on all of those points in terms of the ultra rich and how they do not pay enough in terms of percentage. And that the banks in this country can get away with so much is not fair because almost all of our politicians (Dem & Rep) are paid off by those banks. It's why I addressed in my original post of the small to medium businesses should be able to freely negotiate pay with their employees, not to be governed by it. The small to medium sized businesses will get hurt the most as I stated previously. The amount of inflation will rise so dramatically though as well as unrest with upper level employees of these very same businesses. Miles you are free to call bullshit when you see it, but it's appropriate if you look at facts and analyze potential situations that can occur.
Employee versus employer mindset. Overtime pay hurts the employer more than it helps the employee in many cases.
This is just a move to increase the tax base, same with a minimum wage hike, without addressing any of the issues Miles raised above.
There are so many other things that the President and Congress could be focusing on right now. We sit back and watch the Oscars meanwhile the Soviet Union is getting the band back together.
if that's true lits, then wouldn't it be a really good idea to set a base standard of living for all americans? it's like, for poor people who can't afford a place to live or to buy food, they would be able to afford food and a place to live. for rich people, they're still rich. no downside, and a huge upside.
Cost of guaranteed living wage: $6.6 trillion ($2,500 / mo x 12 mo. x 220 million adults 21 and over).
Direct effects:
Complete elimination of poverty, welfare and assistance programs ( food stamps), social security (> $1.6 trillion).
Elimination of unemployment benefits (> $500 billion) and other assistance programs such as TANF ($28b), SSI ($43b), block grants ($4.7b), etc.
Reduction in crime and associated reductions in police, courts and incarceration. ($1 trillion).
Total so far > $3.2 trillion, about half the cost of the program paid for in direct economic benefits. These are the largest and most obvious direct costs and do not include state programs including education, poverty and food assistance, Head Start, utility assistance, legal aid, etc. In addition, the overhead for all of these federal and state programs would be eliminated.
A guaranteed living wage would be significant direct economic stimulus as it would be spent, not socked away in "investments" (often tax free investments) the way current stimulus is. This stimulus would result in a dramatic increase in state tax revenue from spending.
Indirect effects:
Reduction in health care costs due to improved nutrition (no more dependence on toxic $1 "happy" meals) as well as stress reduction. Increase in family bonds, education quality etc. from time raising family that formerly spent working.
Increase in personal happiness as worries about the ability to have a basic living (food and shelter) are eliminated. People would work for enjoyment, challenge, social reasons and additional income instead of for basic survival.
Reduction in volunteer military service due to elimination of economic necessity (23-25% real unemployment, the real reason we don't have a draft).
So where to get the rest of the money to pay for this? To start, stop giving $800 billion a year in subsidies to big banks. Cut military spending 50%, saving another $500 billion. Eliminate corporate tax exemptions of $700 billion (or more) and corporate welfare (>$160 billion in direct subsidies). That's another $2.2 trillion without considering the increase in tax revenue from direct spending or changing personal tax rates - Mitt Romney is still paying 11% on a quarter billion annual income. I'm going to make an assumption that the final 15% would be more than made up by increased tax revenue from spending, which seems conservative to me.
We could also eliminate black budgets (NSA etc.), fraud and waste (outsourcing military to the highest bidder (Halliburton, Blackwater/Xe/Academi, etc.) as well as properly tax the rich, and not just their incomes but their trillions in assets which were largely built out of tax avoidance.
Of course we could instead just provide real jobs repairing the crumbling infrastructure and start properly taxing corporations and rich. The WPA worked (except for distribution, because of politics).
There is more than one way to skin a cat. What's missing here is not the ability but the will.
Who is going to work at the gas station, or stocking shelves at the grocery store, or making hamburgers at the fast food joint, when they can stay at home, post on FaceBook and make the same or more? What does that do to the cost of labor for these entry-level positions out in the marketplace?
So, handing everyone in the country -- regardless of their individual circumstances -- a random sum of $2500 in unearned cash is the key to the success of the nation?
You've noted a lot of waste -- I'm in favor of most of the cuts you've described.
There are certain, and few, legitimate functions of government for which we pay taxes. We are currently well beyond those functions. Your living wage would push us even further beyond those boundaries.
Even considered onthe most basic level, if I'm working every day to earn money, I'm curious why you think you should be entitled to that money?
I actually think that a guaranteed minimum income would be a great replacement for the current patched-together social safety net. The whole thing would probably be much simpler to administer.
eke, the people who pump gas and clean stuff and whatnot would be the people who want a nicer place to live, a nicer life for their children, or a decent computer to surf facebook on. the minimum living wage would be pretty tight. they would still get the $2,500, plus whatever they earn.
That's not what I understood about the proposal. I thought we were talking about a basic income guaranteed by the state, in this case $2500/mo. If I work at 7-Eleven and make $2500/mo, then I wouldn't get the GMI.
In the case I just cited, an unintended consequence of a GMI would very likely be that the 7-Eleven owner will now have to offer significantly more in order to actually get people to work there. The couch and the TV now directly compete with his job offering in the marketplace. His profit margin goes down, as does his taxable income.
Who is going to work at the gas station, or stocking shelves at the grocery store, or making hamburgers at the fast food joint, when they can stay at home, post on FaceBook and make the same or more?
EKE - Is profit your only incentive for working?
Even considered on the most basic level, if I'm working every day to earn money, I'm curious why you think you should be entitled to that money?
Saint - How is it "your" money? You would be "entitled" to it as well. Is money the basis for existence?
We have been indoctrinated into a system that values everything according to money. There are other value systems, and economics could serve them instead of ruling them.
I like the idea of working less and living more. I like the idea of products being more expensive - both as a true reflection of their cost to society and the environment and as a way to reduce consumption. When things are cheap they are above all else disposable; when they cost a lot they are treated as if they have real value.
"Saint - How is it "your" money? You would be "entitled" to it as well. Is money the basis for existence?"
I'll pass on the unearned entitlement you're dangling. It's just more shuffled taxpayer money.
Money that I worked for would be mine because I worked for it. If you don't think that's a good enough reason, then I invite you to send me a "fair" portion of all those $250 / hour evil-profit commissions you've mentioned.
As far as "the basis for existence", of course it isn't. But the way a man acquires and handles money usually says a great deal about his character.
the way a man acquires and handles money usually says a great deal about his character
I couldn't agree more: politicians, lobbyists, corporate CEOs, hedge fund managers, drug cartel leaders, and so on as as opposed to laborers, tradesmen, clerks, teachers, etc.
Basic human rights have been defined as clean food to eat, clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, basic shelter and a modicum of health care. What kind of society would deny those very things to its own citizens?
Of course profit is not my only incentive for working, although for some people it is. I would do what I do for free, because I love it.
What I said was that labor costs for entry level work would inevitably rise, because those jobs are competing with an alternative which many will find appealing: not working, and still getting paid. There will be fewer people available to fill those jobs.
By the way, my company is an S-Corp, so technically, that makes me a "corporate CEO", and apparently, the locus of evil in western civilization.
I think the majority of the 15 million people on unemployment, the majority of the 10-15 million who have exhausted unemployment benefits, the majority of the homeless, the majority of those on food stamps (most of whom are employed!), etc., would be very happy to work or keep working, as the case may be. Sure there will be some slackers, but denigrating the whole concept because a small percentage wouldn't contribute is the same kind of 'logic' that punishes everyone for the misdeeds of a few. Which, aside from keeping people down, seems to be one of the basic principles of government.
I wouldn't describe what I said as "denigrating". I actually think that this is an interesting alternative to the megainefficient bureaucracy of modern welfare safety net. But there are downsides, and they need to be addressed. One of those potential downsides is how such a system would effect the labor market.
I'm pretty certain that if we decide that every American had the right to a minimum living salary, whether they choose to work or not, many people that are currently working would choose to stop working. How many remains to be seen. Would the benefits to society outweigh the damage? That is uncertain, and makes for an interesting debate.
Miles Jaffe I think it's funny how you've twice mentioned Mitt Romney (obviously noting you are a loyalist no matter what circumstance). You want to seem logical in discussion also make note that half those Wall St millionaires/billionaires also vote Democrat as well.
you could switch romney with warren buffett. he's a democrat. of course buffett knows it's messed up that government is chasing working class people for tax dollars instead of him
eke, perhaps the benefit to society would be that people would work because they want to, not because they're forced to. i think that might make a better society. if you really didn't like that job at 7/11, you have the option to quit. you'll only work at 7/11 if it creates a better life for you. if the people running 7/11 can't provide their workers a reasonable opportunity to pursue happiness, they will fail. is there really anything wrong with letting them fail, if they can't meet such a low standard? do we still have 7/11's? i haven't seen one in many years.
Curtkram, I'm hoping your were enjoying your 4th or 5th cocktail when you wrote that last response to Eke. One sentence is more outrageous than the last.
2500 guaranteed to all. So, let's stamp out welfare and waste with an even larger and even more wasteful welfare program? Apparently waste produces larger benefits at a larger scale.
Miles, it would make little sense to make the cuts you suggest, only to then run the tab right back up and beyond with another social spending program.
You have no entitlement to another man's earnings, regardless of how superior you think your redistribution ideas might be.
Maybe the problem here is how you define waste. To me, waste is the massive accumulation of resources by a select few people at the direct cost and well-being of everyone else.
The economic system you that you so adore is an artificial construct with a specific purpose. It has no basis in nature.
Economic systems can be used for the benefit of many, or the benefit of a few. If you steal $100, you are going to jail. If you steal a couple of hundred million dollars, you are given immunity and a fat bonus. We don't have government, we have liars and thieves who work for corporate syndicates.
One of the ways these syndicates thrive is by dividing people and making them compete aginst each other. The only thing they are really afraid of is the idea that we might start cooperating with each other. The fabric of community is a threat to their very existence.
Perhaps it's just hard to understand what "earnings" is supposed to mean. Mitt romney "earned" what he has by withdrawing from the trust fund his dad gave him or taking from the debt he stuck on the businesses he took over. Warren buffet "earns" money when the workers at shaw and geico work hard. A "man's earnings" only come from hard work when that man is born into a favorable environment.
Maybe mile's idea of redistribution isn't perfect, but that doesn't change the fact that the initial distribution of earnings is broken
What about purchasing power, Curt? Why do we even need earnings? You can own a home outright and raise all your own food, but you still need coin to pay your taxes, so get a job.
i have a job. clients go to my boss, my boss delegates work, i do the work, then the client pays my boss.
which means my boss (a.k.a., "another man") is earning money and i'm entitled to part of it per earlier employment agreements. or, said a bit more simply, i am entitled to another man's earnings.
i agree with you that people need money to survive. at least in the political climate i currently live in; it might be different for a bedouin or something. i think that would support mile's program to make sure everyone has a bare minimum living wage.
sorry, I wrote that in super haste, didn't mean to tell you to get a job. I was just saying that we all need jobs to pay the government because that is the system we live in, because we all agree to it, and this is because it is how our needs are best served. Although I do have a distant cousin that resided in a tent for a few years by choice to opt out of the system... don't underestimate the laziness of people. I'd probably take the $2500 stipend and hang out in the park rather than get a job too, I'd live cheap or free and never make any investments in myself or my environment.
The value system has been perverted. Money has become the only measure of value. We see it every day in politics, foreign relations, military misadventures, environmental destruction, unemployment, a welfare state for the rich, etc. this is an artifical and unsustainable system. The government is giving $65 billion a month to the banks, and has been pouring money into them for more than 5 years now. What kind of society would we have if that money had been put into people who would actually benefit from it? Who, with no small amount of irony, are the ones who have to pay for it.
i know tint, but it provided me an opportunity to point out how saint's concept of "another man's earnings" and entitlement should be just as outrageous as miles's idea of providing everyone a living wage. it was probably lost on him anyway.
there is a pretty good chance this system won't be put in place. there are certainly some jobs that are pretty horrible, yet still need done. however, it can be a useful conversation as a way of defining what we value. a lot of people are too obsessed with greed. if we looked at the human value of things, or quality of life, or what things are really worth, i think we could find better motivators.
here's my theoretical;
a coal miner probably isn't mining coal because they think it's fun. they're doing it because they see it as the best (or only) option that lets them feed themselves and their families. or the only way to get money to pay taxes if you want to see it that way. that person is probably not as obsessed with greed as the board of directors or CEO at peabody energy corporation. they can't afford to be, since that coal miner was probably born into a less affluent family and isn't going to get rich no matter how hard they work, where they go, or what they do. greed is generally futile for someone just trying to get by and keep themselves alive.
as a society, we kind of need that miner extracting coal so we can get electricity to power our computers so we can post on archinect. we don't need the ceo or board of directors at peabody energy. if they all died off and just left some reasonably salaried middle managers to run the operations, we would still be able to power our computers to post to archinect. might suck for the shareholders in peabody energy though, especially if their profits started going towards providing a reasonable quality of life and acceptable safety standards for the people doing the actual work. i think the idea is, if a business like peabody energy gave a shit about people instead of only focusing on the greed of wealthy people, it would be a better place to live for a lot of people.
providing a minimum living wage to everyone might be a good way to get our businesses to focus on the real-life they're creating, rather than just being greedy. at some point, we lose electricity and can't post to archinect any more. if we want archinect back, someone has to go mine coal. they aren't going to do it for nothing, and they aren't going to kill themselves, because they no longer have to die just to have their basic needs met. thus, the human part of the business becomes more important than greed.
I don't know about that, but I do enjoy these thought experiments. Maybe we just do away with all the baby-boomers. Force them all to move to a compound in Phoenix and ration their water and food. That'll fix it all.
In a socially just society, a coal miner would be paid far more than a banker. The miner puts his life on the line every day, the banker sucks the life out of everything he touches.
Curtkarm,. you seem to be indicating that no one honestly earns their money, which is a stereotypical view, and incorrect. Your diatribe offers little beyond the rantings of a stoned college sophomore.
Miles: In a socially just society, a coal miner would be paid far more than a banker. The miner puts his life on the line every day, the banker sucks the life out of everything he touches. ...A couple more of these statements and I'll have to give up on you completely...
Miles, as far as my "adoration for the current system", that's nothing but your incorrect speculation. You've decided that capitalism is bad based on the screwed up version currently in place. Much of what you've written is spot on. But your solutions are wrong.
You are quite correct that the system has been perverted to favor certain groups. But your legimitate outrage over the shenanigans of corporate America seems to have become so all-consuming that it has blinded you to what's really wrong. Your solution does nothing but redistribute taxes in a different way. And, I would argue -- another destructive way.
As an example, say corporate America was suddenly cleaned up completey. No more unfair deals with whichever party is currently in power. So, the tax money that has been historically used for these deals is now freed up -- what do you now do with that money? Is that money -- which was essentially stolen from taxpayers -- really fair game for a new program such as yours?
Let's think about the very few constitutional functions of governement. The social programs that were started under FDR, those that were expanded in the 1960's, and the enormous increases in such programs since then all the way up ObamaCare -- those are all unconsitutional examples of the "smarter" people spending tax money. All of these programs are rife with corruption. How would your program be any different?
I think you're justifying bad behavior with other bad behavior. You're simply saying that the system is so flawed that any better-directed spending of the money would be an improvement, which, is nothing more than beating a man with a slightly smaller stick and then claiming moral superiority.
I'm saying that true reform would elminate all of the points of waste you've enumerated and more BUT, then, the bizarre levels of taxation and debt and government control would go away -- and not simply be redirected as you are suggesting.
For me to be coerced by force to involuntarily pay for unconsitutional programs which have no place in a free society is wrong. Indiscriminately taking money from you and me and then giving it to fund Curtkrams quest for personal happiness would be unethical.
Curtkarm,. you seem to be indicating that no one honestly earns their money, which is a stereotypical view, and incorrect. Your diatribe offers little beyond the rantings of a stoned college sophomore.
i'm sorry your ideological dogma does not allow you to try understanding what i'm saying.
i am not implying no one honestly earns their money. i'm saying how much money you have has little relation to what you do to earn it. the environment you're born to is a far greater indicator to how much wealth you will have than how hard you work, how smart you are, how capable you are, or really any other indicator. there is a certain point where you can work hard and earn a living for yourself, but that isn't likely to get you very far. to go beyond that, you need to be born into favorable circumstance.
balancing income inequality isn't about redistributing wealth from those who work to those who don't. it would be closer to say it's about leveling the advantage one gets from who they're born to.
when you say "entitlement to another man's earnings," i think you're implying that the other man is entitled to their earnings, as if they actually did something to get those earnings. but wealth doesn't come from "earning" it, it comes from your birth. for example, having a trust fund handed to you is different that "earning" something.
a laissez-faire economy isn't going to work. in our currently corrupt overly-taxed system, the rich and powerful are able to consolidate their wealth in such a way as to screw the working class for their own benefit. in some cases they've been able to buy legislation to help them, but there are still some government regulations that help those of us who work for a living. if you remove government from the economy, you'll just have the rich and powerful consolidating their power without having to pay off politicians. removing greed would be far more effective than removing government.
"trickle-down" economics gives those rich and powerful people more money, with the expectation that when they have more money they will spread it through the economy. when legislation supporting that policy was passed through the 80s and 90s, we saw rich people get more money. nothing magic happens after that. they just get more money. the government had a large role in creating this problem with supply-side economic policy and reversing depression era legislation that was necessary in limiting corruption in the finance industry. it will take government policy to fix it.
obamacare is an example of a regulation that could potentially be very helpful. since you can't be denied coverage for a pre-existing condition, some families can quit their job to retire or start their own business instead of depending on an employer's group policy. by the way, the supreme court says it's constitutional. the way our government works is that the supreme court gets to decide what is and is not constitutional. turns out our founding fathers didn't want to give angry radio show hosts any real say in government policy.
Obama set to expand overtime pay by executive order
It's not exactly clear yet what the requirements will be and if architecture interns will be affected or not, but if the income threshold is raised, it may require employers to pay 1.5 hourly rate for overtime hours above 40 hours per week for a significant number of interns.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/12/us/politics/obama-will-seek-broad-expansion-of-overtime-pay.html?hp&_r=1
Aren't most on salary and stipends?
One can get overtime while on salary?!
yes, you can earn overtime pay while salaried.
Forcing employers to pay more means less will be reaping the benefits.
Honestly as someone who has grown up working in the family business with supermarkets and currently working in investment banking and looking to transition to architecture eventually. I've seen and worked in small local business to corporate America, I really do not believe it is the governments' responsibility to dictate these things when consenting grown adults have the ability to. That goes for our Architecture profession as well as it is still looking for a way/new identity post-recession. This is one thing that the Gov't should just stay out of. As LITS4FormZ said, the less will be reaping the benefits.
At a previous firm, whenever I was closing in on over 40 hour week spans, I was magically a salaried employee. Projects dying down and looking like less than 40 hours I was back to hourly.
Forcing employers to pay more means less will be reaping the benefits.
i don't agree with this, but i suppose the only way we'll know is to have obama set stricter guidelines and then see what happens.
somebody has to do the work. if that means the people complaining have to quit complaining a while and do the work themselves instead of under-paying some lacky to do it, then that isn't so bad. at least not in my mind. if they still want to have someone else doing the work while they complain about it, then they'll just have to keep less for themselves and pay those people a bit more.
when the people actually working for a living have more to spend, that will stimulate the economy more than having already wealthy people hoarding more wealth, because people who work for a living typically spend what money they have. that means more people paying for goods and services, which means the people complaining about paying their employees a reasonable living wage might get more business, allowing them to expand their business and hire more people.
Yeah, Lance, we all know that government's real job is to suppress labor costs so the already-too-rich can get even richer.
Yeah sure Miles Jaffe, just go on ahead and make some blatant fact-less assumption because of something you did not like hearing. With a response like that, you seem the type that no matter what you blame republicans for everything irregardless of facts (and I do not consider myself a Repub, just sick of the rhetoric from mindless loyalists). Think about it like this, if minimum wage is raised to desired number. Besides crazy inflation, what about the more experienced employees that were close to that wage? Not only will they feel slapped in the face but they will want to have higher wages to distant themselves from the min wage people.
Aren't most on salary and stipends?
By tying the overtime rule to a minimum weekly/annual income, it basically doesn't make a difference whether you are classified as hourly or salary; you are de facto hourly. Currently anyone making less than $455/week ($23,660/year) has to be paid 1.5x hourly wage for hours worked over 40 hours per week. If, say, Obama raised that minimum threshold to $800/week (or $41,600 annually), anyone making less than that would have to be paid overtime at 1.5x hourly wage. Therefore, interns who are typically hired in between $30-40k annually would all have to be paid overtime by federal law.
Lance, I call out bullshit when I see it. No need to get offended.
FYI that was not an assumption, it is an ironic fact. Why hasn't the minimum wage been doubled? Why does Mitt Romney pay 11% tax on $250m income when my FICA alone is 15.6%? Why do banks get $65b a month interest free to invest however they want?
What exactly is the government's job? Aside from sucking corporate dick for all it's worth and shitting on citizens.
Curious, Miles. What do you think the government's job / role is?
i'm not miles, but i'll offer 'protect the governed'
you could say 'fulfill the social contract' if you were of the mind to see things that way
obviously 'take advantage of the disadvantaged to favor the wealthy' is not the job of government. then again, maybe that isn't as obvious as i might think.
Miles, I actually do agree with you on all of those points in terms of the ultra rich and how they do not pay enough in terms of percentage. And that the banks in this country can get away with so much is not fair because almost all of our politicians (Dem & Rep) are paid off by those banks. It's why I addressed in my original post of the small to medium businesses should be able to freely negotiate pay with their employees, not to be governed by it. The small to medium sized businesses will get hurt the most as I stated previously. The amount of inflation will rise so dramatically though as well as unrest with upper level employees of these very same businesses. Miles you are free to call bullshit when you see it, but it's appropriate if you look at facts and analyze potential situations that can occur.
This is just a move to increase the tax base, same with a minimum wage hike, without addressing any of the issues Miles raised above.
There are so many other things that the President and Congress could be focusing on right now. We sit back and watch the Oscars meanwhile the Soviet Union is getting the band back together.
it's really not about the oscars. it's more about people who pretend it's about the tax base and then say 'let them eat cake'
Thought experiment:
What would happen if every adult citizen received a guaranteed living wage of $2,500 a month?
^ From whom? Other taxpayers?
All the effects.
In 10 years you would still have about the same distribution of rich vs poor.
if that's true lits, then wouldn't it be a really good idea to set a base standard of living for all americans? it's like, for poor people who can't afford a place to live or to buy food, they would be able to afford food and a place to live. for rich people, they're still rich. no downside, and a huge upside.
Cost of guaranteed living wage: $6.6 trillion ($2,500 / mo x 12 mo. x 220 million adults 21 and over).
Direct effects:
Complete elimination of poverty, welfare and assistance programs ( food stamps), social security (> $1.6 trillion).
Elimination of unemployment benefits (> $500 billion) and other assistance programs such as TANF ($28b), SSI ($43b), block grants ($4.7b), etc.
Reduction in crime and associated reductions in police, courts and incarceration. ($1 trillion).
Total so far > $3.2 trillion, about half the cost of the program paid for in direct economic benefits. These are the largest and most obvious direct costs and do not include state programs including education, poverty and food assistance, Head Start, utility assistance, legal aid, etc. In addition, the overhead for all of these federal and state programs would be eliminated.
A guaranteed living wage would be significant direct economic stimulus as it would be spent, not socked away in "investments" (often tax free investments) the way current stimulus is. This stimulus would result in a dramatic increase in state tax revenue from spending.
Indirect effects:
Reduction in health care costs due to improved nutrition (no more dependence on toxic $1 "happy" meals) as well as stress reduction. Increase in family bonds, education quality etc. from time raising family that formerly spent working.
Increase in personal happiness as worries about the ability to have a basic living (food and shelter) are eliminated. People would work for enjoyment, challenge, social reasons and additional income instead of for basic survival.
Reduction in volunteer military service due to elimination of economic necessity (23-25% real unemployment, the real reason we don't have a draft).
So where to get the rest of the money to pay for this? To start, stop giving $800 billion a year in subsidies to big banks. Cut military spending 50%, saving another $500 billion. Eliminate corporate tax exemptions of $700 billion (or more) and corporate welfare (>$160 billion in direct subsidies). That's another $2.2 trillion without considering the increase in tax revenue from direct spending or changing personal tax rates - Mitt Romney is still paying 11% on a quarter billion annual income. I'm going to make an assumption that the final 15% would be more than made up by increased tax revenue from spending, which seems conservative to me.
We could also eliminate black budgets (NSA etc.), fraud and waste (outsourcing military to the highest bidder (Halliburton, Blackwater/Xe/Academi, etc.) as well as properly tax the rich, and not just their incomes but their trillions in assets which were largely built out of tax avoidance.
Of course we could instead just provide real jobs repairing the crumbling infrastructure and start properly taxing corporations and rich. The WPA worked (except for distribution, because of politics).
There is more than one way to skin a cat. What's missing here is not the ability but the will.
Who is going to work at the gas station, or stocking shelves at the grocery store, or making hamburgers at the fast food joint, when they can stay at home, post on FaceBook and make the same or more? What does that do to the cost of labor for these entry-level positions out in the marketplace?
So, handing everyone in the country -- regardless of their individual circumstances -- a random sum of $2500 in unearned cash is the key to the success of the nation?
You've noted a lot of waste -- I'm in favor of most of the cuts you've described.
There are certain, and few, legitimate functions of government for which we pay taxes. We are currently well beyond those functions. Your living wage would push us even further beyond those boundaries.
Even considered onthe most basic level, if I'm working every day to earn money, I'm curious why you think you should be entitled to that money?
I actually think that a guaranteed minimum income would be a great replacement for the current patched-together social safety net. The whole thing would probably be much simpler to administer.
eke, the people who pump gas and clean stuff and whatnot would be the people who want a nicer place to live, a nicer life for their children, or a decent computer to surf facebook on. the minimum living wage would be pretty tight. they would still get the $2,500, plus whatever they earn.
That's not what I understood about the proposal. I thought we were talking about a basic income guaranteed by the state, in this case $2500/mo. If I work at 7-Eleven and make $2500/mo, then I wouldn't get the GMI.
In the case I just cited, an unintended consequence of a GMI would very likely be that the 7-Eleven owner will now have to offer significantly more in order to actually get people to work there. The couch and the TV now directly compete with his job offering in the marketplace. His profit margin goes down, as does his taxable income.
Who is going to work at the gas station, or stocking shelves at the grocery store, or making hamburgers at the fast food joint, when they can stay at home, post on FaceBook and make the same or more?
EKE - Is profit your only incentive for working?
Even considered on the most basic level, if I'm working every day to earn money, I'm curious why you think you should be entitled to that money?
Saint - How is it "your" money? You would be "entitled" to it as well. Is money the basis for existence?
We have been indoctrinated into a system that values everything according to money. There are other value systems, and economics could serve them instead of ruling them.
I like the idea of working less and living more. I like the idea of products being more expensive - both as a true reflection of their cost to society and the environment and as a way to reduce consumption. When things are cheap they are above all else disposable; when they cost a lot they are treated as if they have real value.
"Saint - How is it "your" money? You would be "entitled" to it as well. Is money the basis for existence?"
I'll pass on the unearned entitlement you're dangling. It's just more shuffled taxpayer money.
Money that I worked for would be mine because I worked for it. If you don't think that's a good enough reason, then I invite you to send me a "fair" portion of all those $250 / hour evil-profit commissions you've mentioned.
As far as "the basis for existence", of course it isn't. But the way a man acquires and handles money usually says a great deal about his character.
This thread went all hijacky.
the way a man acquires and handles money usually says a great deal about his character
I couldn't agree more: politicians, lobbyists, corporate CEOs, hedge fund managers, drug cartel leaders, and so on as as opposed to laborers, tradesmen, clerks, teachers, etc.
Basic human rights have been defined as clean food to eat, clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, basic shelter and a modicum of health care. What kind of society would deny those very things to its own citizens?
Of course profit is not my only incentive for working, although for some people it is. I would do what I do for free, because I love it.
What I said was that labor costs for entry level work would inevitably rise, because those jobs are competing with an alternative which many will find appealing: not working, and still getting paid. There will be fewer people available to fill those jobs.
By the way, my company is an S-Corp, so technically, that makes me a "corporate CEO", and apparently, the locus of evil in western civilization.
I think the majority of the 15 million people on unemployment, the majority of the 10-15 million who have exhausted unemployment benefits, the majority of the homeless, the majority of those on food stamps (most of whom are employed!), etc., would be very happy to work or keep working, as the case may be. Sure there will be some slackers, but denigrating the whole concept because a small percentage wouldn't contribute is the same kind of 'logic' that punishes everyone for the misdeeds of a few. Which, aside from keeping people down, seems to be one of the basic principles of government.
I wouldn't describe what I said as "denigrating". I actually think that this is an interesting alternative to the megainefficient bureaucracy of modern welfare safety net. But there are downsides, and they need to be addressed. One of those potential downsides is how such a system would effect the labor market.
I'm pretty certain that if we decide that every American had the right to a minimum living salary, whether they choose to work or not, many people that are currently working would choose to stop working. How many remains to be seen. Would the benefits to society outweigh the damage? That is uncertain, and makes for an interesting debate.
Miles Jaffe I think it's funny how you've twice mentioned Mitt Romney (obviously noting you are a loyalist no matter what circumstance). You want to seem logical in discussion also make note that half those Wall St millionaires/billionaires also vote Democrat as well.
This thread got hijacked big time.
Lance, do you really think there is a difference between Dems and Reps? Do you really think voters determine elections?
Egad.
FYI Romney is simply a well-known example of a very rich person who pays tax at a far lower rate than low and middle income citizens.
Re: hijacking - this thread is about political action on wages.
you could switch romney with warren buffett. he's a democrat. of course buffett knows it's messed up that government is chasing working class people for tax dollars instead of him
eke, perhaps the benefit to society would be that people would work because they want to, not because they're forced to. i think that might make a better society. if you really didn't like that job at 7/11, you have the option to quit. you'll only work at 7/11 if it creates a better life for you. if the people running 7/11 can't provide their workers a reasonable opportunity to pursue happiness, they will fail. is there really anything wrong with letting them fail, if they can't meet such a low standard? do we still have 7/11's? i haven't seen one in many years.
Curtkram, I'm hoping your were enjoying your 4th or 5th cocktail when you wrote that last response to Eke. One sentence is more outrageous than the last.
2500 guaranteed to all. So, let's stamp out welfare and waste with an even larger and even more wasteful welfare program? Apparently waste produces larger benefits at a larger scale.
Miles, it would make little sense to make the cuts you suggest, only to then run the tab right back up and beyond with another social spending program.
You have no entitlement to another man's earnings, regardless of how superior you think your redistribution ideas might be.
Maybe the problem here is how you define waste. To me, waste is the massive accumulation of resources by a select few people at the direct cost and well-being of everyone else.
The economic system you that you so adore is an artificial construct with a specific purpose. It has no basis in nature.
Economic systems can be used for the benefit of many, or the benefit of a few. If you steal $100, you are going to jail. If you steal a couple of hundred million dollars, you are given immunity and a fat bonus. We don't have government, we have liars and thieves who work for corporate syndicates.
One of the ways these syndicates thrive is by dividing people and making them compete aginst each other. The only thing they are really afraid of is the idea that we might start cooperating with each other. The fabric of community is a threat to their very existence.
http://www.salon.com/2014/03/15/robert_reich_paid_what_youre_worth_is_a_dangerous_myth_partner/
Perhaps it's just hard to understand what "earnings" is supposed to mean. Mitt romney "earned" what he has by withdrawing from the trust fund his dad gave him or taking from the debt he stuck on the businesses he took over. Warren buffet "earns" money when the workers at shaw and geico work hard. A "man's earnings" only come from hard work when that man is born into a favorable environment.
Maybe mile's idea of redistribution isn't perfect, but that doesn't change the fact that the initial distribution of earnings is broken
What about purchasing power, Curt? Why do we even need earnings? You can own a home outright and raise all your own food, but you still need coin to pay your taxes, so get a job.
i have a job. clients go to my boss, my boss delegates work, i do the work, then the client pays my boss.
which means my boss (a.k.a., "another man") is earning money and i'm entitled to part of it per earlier employment agreements. or, said a bit more simply, i am entitled to another man's earnings.
i agree with you that people need money to survive. at least in the political climate i currently live in; it might be different for a bedouin or something. i think that would support mile's program to make sure everyone has a bare minimum living wage.
sorry, I wrote that in super haste, didn't mean to tell you to get a job. I was just saying that we all need jobs to pay the government because that is the system we live in, because we all agree to it, and this is because it is how our needs are best served. Although I do have a distant cousin that resided in a tent for a few years by choice to opt out of the system... don't underestimate the laziness of people. I'd probably take the $2500 stipend and hang out in the park rather than get a job too, I'd live cheap or free and never make any investments in myself or my environment.
The value system has been perverted. Money has become the only measure of value. We see it every day in politics, foreign relations, military misadventures, environmental destruction, unemployment, a welfare state for the rich, etc. this is an artifical and unsustainable system. The government is giving $65 billion a month to the banks, and has been pouring money into them for more than 5 years now. What kind of society would we have if that money had been put into people who would actually benefit from it? Who, with no small amount of irony, are the ones who have to pay for it.
Yup. The government doesn't want a healthy, educated, happy populace, so that's not how they spend our money.
i know tint, but it provided me an opportunity to point out how saint's concept of "another man's earnings" and entitlement should be just as outrageous as miles's idea of providing everyone a living wage. it was probably lost on him anyway.
there is a pretty good chance this system won't be put in place. there are certainly some jobs that are pretty horrible, yet still need done. however, it can be a useful conversation as a way of defining what we value. a lot of people are too obsessed with greed. if we looked at the human value of things, or quality of life, or what things are really worth, i think we could find better motivators.
here's my theoretical;
a coal miner probably isn't mining coal because they think it's fun. they're doing it because they see it as the best (or only) option that lets them feed themselves and their families. or the only way to get money to pay taxes if you want to see it that way. that person is probably not as obsessed with greed as the board of directors or CEO at peabody energy corporation. they can't afford to be, since that coal miner was probably born into a less affluent family and isn't going to get rich no matter how hard they work, where they go, or what they do. greed is generally futile for someone just trying to get by and keep themselves alive.
as a society, we kind of need that miner extracting coal so we can get electricity to power our computers so we can post on archinect. we don't need the ceo or board of directors at peabody energy. if they all died off and just left some reasonably salaried middle managers to run the operations, we would still be able to power our computers to post to archinect. might suck for the shareholders in peabody energy though, especially if their profits started going towards providing a reasonable quality of life and acceptable safety standards for the people doing the actual work. i think the idea is, if a business like peabody energy gave a shit about people instead of only focusing on the greed of wealthy people, it would be a better place to live for a lot of people.
providing a minimum living wage to everyone might be a good way to get our businesses to focus on the real-life they're creating, rather than just being greedy. at some point, we lose electricity and can't post to archinect any more. if we want archinect back, someone has to go mine coal. they aren't going to do it for nothing, and they aren't going to kill themselves, because they no longer have to die just to have their basic needs met. thus, the human part of the business becomes more important than greed.
I don't know about that, but I do enjoy these thought experiments. Maybe we just do away with all the baby-boomers. Force them all to move to a compound in Phoenix and ration their water and food. That'll fix it all.
In a socially just society, a coal miner would be paid far more than a banker. The miner puts his life on the line every day, the banker sucks the life out of everything he touches.
Curtkarm,. you seem to be indicating that no one honestly earns their money, which is a stereotypical view, and incorrect. Your diatribe offers little beyond the rantings of a stoned college sophomore.
Miles: In a socially just society, a coal miner would be paid far more than a banker. The miner puts his life on the line every day, the banker sucks the life out of everything he touches. ...A couple more of these statements and I'll have to give up on you completely...
Miles, as far as my "adoration for the current system", that's nothing but your incorrect speculation. You've decided that capitalism is bad based on the screwed up version currently in place. Much of what you've written is spot on. But your solutions are wrong.
You are quite correct that the system has been perverted to favor certain groups. But your legimitate outrage over the shenanigans of corporate America seems to have become so all-consuming that it has blinded you to what's really wrong. Your solution does nothing but redistribute taxes in a different way. And, I would argue -- another destructive way.
As an example, say corporate America was suddenly cleaned up completey. No more unfair deals with whichever party is currently in power. So, the tax money that has been historically used for these deals is now freed up -- what do you now do with that money? Is that money -- which was essentially stolen from taxpayers -- really fair game for a new program such as yours?
Let's think about the very few constitutional functions of governement. The social programs that were started under FDR, those that were expanded in the 1960's, and the enormous increases in such programs since then all the way up ObamaCare -- those are all unconsitutional examples of the "smarter" people spending tax money. All of these programs are rife with corruption. How would your program be any different?
I think you're justifying bad behavior with other bad behavior. You're simply saying that the system is so flawed that any better-directed spending of the money would be an improvement, which, is nothing more than beating a man with a slightly smaller stick and then claiming moral superiority.
I'm saying that true reform would elminate all of the points of waste you've enumerated and more BUT, then, the bizarre levels of taxation and debt and government control would go away -- and not simply be redirected as you are suggesting.
For me to be coerced by force to involuntarily pay for unconsitutional programs which have no place in a free society is wrong. Indiscriminately taking money from you and me and then giving it to fund Curtkrams quest for personal happiness would be unethical.
Curtkarm,. you seem to be indicating that no one honestly earns their money, which is a stereotypical view, and incorrect. Your diatribe offers little beyond the rantings of a stoned college sophomore.
i'm sorry your ideological dogma does not allow you to try understanding what i'm saying.
i am not implying no one honestly earns their money. i'm saying how much money you have has little relation to what you do to earn it. the environment you're born to is a far greater indicator to how much wealth you will have than how hard you work, how smart you are, how capable you are, or really any other indicator. there is a certain point where you can work hard and earn a living for yourself, but that isn't likely to get you very far. to go beyond that, you need to be born into favorable circumstance.
balancing income inequality isn't about redistributing wealth from those who work to those who don't. it would be closer to say it's about leveling the advantage one gets from who they're born to.
when you say "entitlement to another man's earnings," i think you're implying that the other man is entitled to their earnings, as if they actually did something to get those earnings. but wealth doesn't come from "earning" it, it comes from your birth. for example, having a trust fund handed to you is different that "earning" something.
a laissez-faire economy isn't going to work. in our currently corrupt overly-taxed system, the rich and powerful are able to consolidate their wealth in such a way as to screw the working class for their own benefit. in some cases they've been able to buy legislation to help them, but there are still some government regulations that help those of us who work for a living. if you remove government from the economy, you'll just have the rich and powerful consolidating their power without having to pay off politicians. removing greed would be far more effective than removing government.
"trickle-down" economics gives those rich and powerful people more money, with the expectation that when they have more money they will spread it through the economy. when legislation supporting that policy was passed through the 80s and 90s, we saw rich people get more money. nothing magic happens after that. they just get more money. the government had a large role in creating this problem with supply-side economic policy and reversing depression era legislation that was necessary in limiting corruption in the finance industry. it will take government policy to fix it.
obamacare is an example of a regulation that could potentially be very helpful. since you can't be denied coverage for a pre-existing condition, some families can quit their job to retire or start their own business instead of depending on an employer's group policy. by the way, the supreme court says it's constitutional. the way our government works is that the supreme court gets to decide what is and is not constitutional. turns out our founding fathers didn't want to give angry radio show hosts any real say in government policy.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.