$250 checks to some 150 million low and middle income workers
Alright, so the grand total of the U.S. population is about 300 million. But not everyone is part of the workforce.
According to the U.S. Dept. of Labor, the Civilian workforce size--which is the statistical basis for the unemployment rate--was 153,866,000 in December 2007.
So, who are the unlucky 3.866 million who aren't low or middle income?
Or does the "some" modifier on the 150,000,000 mean "one-half of", or "one-third of", or "one-quarter of"?
Two things:
1) Amen!! (Though, given the title, this might not be the best word for it. B-) ).
2) Every time I see the minimum wage pushed upward, I start looking for the unions pushing the pusher. They often negotiate from a prevaling wage model and EXPECT to be paid more than the non-union min wage types.
Simple question to ask any time anybody in (or near) government proposes a change:
Who gains by this and who REALLY gains by it.
Minimum wage is a crock that hurts a free market economy.
Raise minimum wage? No thanks. How about doing away with it entirely? This would be far more likely to reduce that unemployment number.
As far as a tax rebate... Any time the government considers allowing me to keep more of my hard earned money, I'm all for it. It'd save us a bundle if they'd simply work it as a tax credit, though. Since it's tax season anyway, it would make much more sense than mailing out individual checks.
But, will it be a "tax rebate", meaning an individual taxpayer gets back some of what HE paid personally, or will it be "income redistribution", meaning an individual person gets handed a check regardless of whether or not he paid any taxes at all?
Go see here, where we find the (ahem) money quote:
"Democratic congressional leaders agree that one-time checks should be in the package, but are working on a broader measure that would also include aid targeted to the poor and unemployed."
Note the code words: 1) a one-time "check", not a one-time "rebate"; 2) a "broader measure", meaning more than a rebate; and, 3) "targeted" to a particular group, meaning "lets buy some votes".
And the White House is playing fast and loose, too:
"A White House plan is looking at rebates of up to $800 for individuals and $1,600 for married couples under a White House plan."
It's a fixed amount per taxpaying unit, regardless of how that amount relates to what that taxpaying unit paid?
Well, since my name was mentioned, I suppose I better chime in. I thought I'd start with a question.
Is anyone here an economist or have a degree in economics? Or has anyone here spent time working at a job which would offer hands on experience with economic issues?
Is anyone here an economist or have a degree in economics? Or has anyone here spent time working at a job which would offer hands on experience with economic issues?
Markadelphia
Yes, I have worked my entire life and have had to maintain a family budget in such a way that I can then purchase items, pay taxes, save money and do it all without going into the red. Show me one government 'economist' that knows how to do that!
If both sides of the aisle are certain - certain - that giving us back some of our money will "stimulate the economy" - then why are so many always opposed to cutting taxes, which would leave us more of our own money and thus "stimulate the economy"?
Is anyone here an economist or have a degree in economics?
I happen to have a Bachelors in the dismal science. I gave it up as a profession because computer-geekery was much better paying. Which was of course a very sound economic decision!
I don't know, Kevin, maybe because they enjoy spending our money on themselves...lavishly? :)
The reason why I asked these question is that I am curious as to what that person's take would be on a better economic system. So, juris, what would it be? No minimum wage and let the free market take care of it?
I'm not saying I'm for another increase in the minimum wage. Part of me thinks that most businesses pay above that anyway because they really need the help so what does it matter? At the same time, though, I think the image of the free market by some here is a little rosy.
So, juris, what would it be? No minimum wage and let the free market take care of it?
As you yourself note, there are many companies, in many locations that pay ABOVE the minimum in order to recruit and retain employees. Wouldn't you say that the free market is working fairly well?
That notorious capitalist Henry Ford paid wages that were considered 'excessive' at the time. Funny how he managed that AND made tremendous profits for himself and the other shareholders. Didn't even have to be told by the govt to do so either; wonder of wonders.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/01/hell-with-9.html (20 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Where is Milton Friedman when you need him?
Oh, right! He wrote stuff down! We don't need ole' Miltie! We have his books!
I wonder if Obama, Clinton, and Edwards even know who he was.
$250 checks to some 150 million low and middle income workers
Alright, so the grand total of the U.S. population is about 300 million. But not everyone is part of the workforce.
According to the U.S. Dept. of Labor, the Civilian workforce size--which is the statistical basis for the unemployment rate--was 153,866,000 in December 2007.
So, who are the unlucky 3.866 million who aren't low or middle income?
Or does the "some" modifier on the 150,000,000 mean "one-half of", or "one-third of", or "one-quarter of"?
So, who are the unlucky 3.866 million who aren't low or middle income?
I'm not sure, but I think they're the eeeeeevil rich.
Holy cow is that bad economics. The only thing this will do is maybe get Obama elected, and of course destroy the economy.
Two things:
1) Amen!! (Though, given the title, this might not be the best word for it. B-) ).
2) Every time I see the minimum wage pushed upward, I start looking for the unions pushing the pusher. They often negotiate from a prevaling wage model and EXPECT to be paid more than the non-union min wage types.
Simple question to ask any time anybody in (or near) government proposes a change:
Who gains by this and who REALLY gains by it.
Minimum wage is a crock that hurts a free market economy.
Holy crap! But isn't this (on a bigger scale) what FDR did in the '36 election?
This is also a good way to stimulate and maintain a recession...
I sit here reading this proposal, literally shaking my head wondering, "How could we possibly have gotten to this point?"
This is a blatant, bold-faced offer of payment for votes. It is as subtle as a ball peen hammer to the forehead.
This "plan" or something similar will get him or one of the other Dems elected.
Good Lord. I quit.
OK, I have to admit, I'm waiting with bated breath (and no, that isn't anchovies), for Markadelphia's credulous endorsement of the Obama plan.
I could use a good laugh.
I don't think it's necessary to wait for Markadelphia to do it. Apparently Ben Bernanke and George Bush are going to.
I wonder if it's going to carry Obama's name in the title?
Raise minimum wage? No thanks. How about doing away with it entirely? This would be far more likely to reduce that unemployment number.
As far as a tax rebate... Any time the government considers allowing me to keep more of my hard earned money, I'm all for it. It'd save us a bundle if they'd simply work it as a tax credit, though. Since it's tax season anyway, it would make much more sense than mailing out individual checks.
But, will it be a "tax rebate", meaning an individual taxpayer gets back some of what HE paid personally, or will it be "income redistribution", meaning an individual person gets handed a check regardless of whether or not he paid any taxes at all?
Go see here, where we find the (ahem) money quote:
"Democratic congressional leaders agree that one-time checks should be in the package, but are working on a broader measure that would also include aid targeted to the poor and unemployed."
Note the code words: 1) a one-time "check", not a one-time "rebate"; 2) a "broader measure", meaning more than a rebate; and, 3) "targeted" to a particular group, meaning "lets buy some votes".
And the White House is playing fast and loose, too:
"A White House plan is looking at rebates of up to $800 for individuals and $1,600 for married couples under a White House plan."
It's a fixed amount per taxpaying unit, regardless of how that amount relates to what that taxpaying unit paid?
Milton, where are you?
DJ, you cynic!
Well, since my name was mentioned, I suppose I better chime in. I thought I'd start with a question.
Is anyone here an economist or have a degree in economics? Or has anyone here spent time working at a job which would offer hands on experience with economic issues?
Is anyone here an economist or have a degree in economics? Or has anyone here spent time working at a job which would offer hands on experience with economic issues?
Markadelphia
Yes, I have worked my entire life and have had to maintain a family budget in such a way that I can then purchase items, pay taxes, save money and do it all without going into the red. Show me one government 'economist' that knows how to do that!
Dennis
A question for you Markadelphia:
If both sides of the aisle are certain - certain - that giving us back some of our money will "stimulate the economy" - then why are so many always opposed to cutting taxes, which would leave us more of our own money and thus "stimulate the economy"?
Is anyone here an economist or have a degree in economics?
I happen to have a Bachelors in the dismal science. I gave it up as a profession because computer-geekery was much better paying. Which was of course a very sound economic decision!
I don't know, Kevin, maybe because they enjoy spending our money on themselves...lavishly? :)
The reason why I asked these question is that I am curious as to what that person's take would be on a better economic system. So, juris, what would it be? No minimum wage and let the free market take care of it?
I'm not saying I'm for another increase in the minimum wage. Part of me thinks that most businesses pay above that anyway because they really need the help so what does it matter? At the same time, though, I think the image of the free market by some here is a little rosy.
Part of me thinks that most businesses pay above that anyway because they really need the help so what does it matter?
Bingo. McDonald's around here pays better than minimum wage - otherwise they can't get anyone, much less keep them.
At the same time, though, I think the image of the free market by some here is a little rosy.
And yours is a little (a lot, really) dark.
Markadelphia, This is a fable that I read as a small child and have retained in my memory every since. Read it.
http://hca.gilead.org.il/emperor.html
Dennis
So, juris, what would it be? No minimum wage and let the free market take care of it?
As you yourself note, there are many companies, in many locations that pay ABOVE the minimum in order to recruit and retain employees. Wouldn't you say that the free market is working fairly well?
That notorious capitalist Henry Ford paid wages that were considered 'excessive' at the time. Funny how he managed that AND made tremendous profits for himself and the other shareholders. Didn't even have to be told by the govt to do so either; wonder of wonders.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>