The difference in police shootings

[Loren Pechtel]

Hahahahahahahahaha!

If you and your spouse work full time you won't be in poverty unless you breed like rabbits.

Oh yes, blame it on the children.... You crack me up.

Poverty is almost totally a matter of work hours--which is why attacking it via the minimum wage is doomed--it's not controlling factor.

That is the solution, just work more hours every day!

Laugh at your own ignorance if you want. Or do the math.

Did the math.

A single person earning $9 an hour working a full time schedule with no vacation or holidays makes $18,720. In a city like Detroit, a one-bedroom or studio apartment in the ghetto can cost anywhere between $500 and $700 monthly rent, or $6,000 to $7,400 per year. Deduct 20% for payroll taxes, take off another $3,744.

Poverty line for one person (2015): $11,770

18,720
-7,400
-3,744
$7,596,

20% for payroll taxes?

Income tax is $843
FICA is $1432
Total $2275

That's 12%.

As for the rest of it--people in that income range usually have a roommate!

 

[ronburgundy]

Interesting how the goosestepping apologists for police shootings easily disregard the premise that being scared or even "extra careful" is neither a necessary nor sufficient humane justification for shooting the unarmed or the mentally ill.

Given that shootings of the unarmed mentally ill account for about 0.001% of police shootings, that has little bearing on general phenomena of high rates of police shootings by US cops, where lists of 1200 "killings" by cops per year are posted as evidence of police racism and murderous out of control incompetence.

In addition, nowhere have I stated that shootings of unarmed mentally ill persons are humanely justified. The fact that there are others who share your disdain for reasoned thought but hold an opposite blind faith doesn't make your stance any more rational. Also, since you have a well demonstrated lack of understanding of the difference between understanding the actual psychological causes of an event and making a moral judgment about it, let me point out that even in the case of shooting of the unarmed mentally ill, a rational approach to understanding it would include not viewing the event in a psychological vacuum but within the psychological context that cops are in as created by the everyday threats they encounter, which include armed mentally ill people, armed not mentally ill people, people who seem unarmed but are, and people seem easy to overpower but are not and can get ahold of the cops gun if the cop allows them to make physical contact.

People like yourself, lacking any empathy for those who don't suit your political agenda, ignore all of that context that non cops and cops outside the US do not have to deal with, judging the encounter with a seemingly unarmed mentally ill man from your safe bubble-surrounded cushy armchair as though the cops reaction should be that of a person without any of their experiences and with certainty that there is no gun or no chance of being overpowered.

Understanding how that context impacts reactions doesn't mean that reaction can't also be excessive, something we should try harder to reduce, and even criminally incompetent. But that understanding (not excuse making) does help to avoid baseless moronic conclusions about the cops just being racist, looking to kill someone, equatable to a pre-meditated murderer, or devoid of regard for people's lives, black or otherwise, when in most cases protecting lives is the main motive behind their aggression, even when their psychological state driven by experiences make them sometimes over-zealous in that goal.

 

[laughing dog]

Interesting how the goosestepping apologists for police shootings easily disregard the premise that being scared or even "extra careful" is neither a necessary nor sufficient humane justification for shooting the unarmed or the mentally ill.

Given that shootings of the unarmed mentally ill account for about 0.001% of police shootings, that has little bearing on general phenomena of high rates of police shootings by US cops, where lists of 1200 "killings" by cops per year are posted as evidence of police racism and murderous out of control incompetence.

In addition, nowhere have I stated that shootings of unarmed mentally ill persons are humanely justified. The fact that there are others who share your disdain for reasoned thought but hold an opposite blind faith doesn't make your stance any more rational. Also, since you have a well demonstrated lack of understanding of the difference between understanding the actual psychological causes of an event and making a moral judgment about it, let me point out that even in the case of shooting of the unarmed mentally ill, a rational approach to understanding it would include not viewing the event in a psychological vacuum but within the psychological context that cops are in as created by the everyday threats they encounter, which include armed mentally ill people, armed not mentally ill people, people who seem unarmed but are, and people seem easy to overpower but are not and can get ahold of the cops gun if the cop allows them to make physical contact.

People like yourself, lacking any empathy for those who don't suit your political agenda, ignore all of that context that non cops and cops outside the US do not have to deal with, judging the encounter with a seemingly unarmed mentally ill man from your safe bubble-surrounded cushy armchair as though the cops reaction should be that of a person without any of their experiences and with certainty that there is no gun or no chance of being overpowered.

Understanding how that context impacts reactions doesn't mean that reaction can't also be excessive, something we should try harder to reduce, and even criminally incompetent. But that understanding (not excuse making) does help to avoid baseless moronic conclusions about the cops just being racist, looking to kill someone, equatable to a pre-meditated murderer, or devoid of regard for people's lives, black or otherwise, when in most cases protecting lives is the main motive behind their aggression, even when their psychological state driven by experiences make them sometimes over-zealous in that goal.

LOL - your rant is based on an obvious straw man. As your posts have amply demonstrated in the past, that "understanding" is used to justify the shootings of the unarmed or the mentally. Make sure you get your shoes reinforced because I hear that goosestepping wears them out.

 

[Malintent]

 Crime in the Philippines

Violent crime is high in the country; foreigners are usually the victims. As many Filipinos are stricken with poverty, one alternative they take is to kidnap others for money.[2]

consider yourself lucky.

Like anyplace, there are areas to avoid: Manila, Mindinao in general. I was surprised by this Wikipedia entry. Now, I don't usually bother checking Wikipedia references here, but those first two are pretty weak. The rest appear to be largely about sex trafficking.

And the safety net shouldn't be for the working poor. Anyone who works full time should be earning at least enough money to stay out of poverty and to be in the middle class. If we continue to subsidize low wages with the safety net we will just get more low wages.

If you work full time you won't be in poverty.

If you and your spouse work full time you won't be in poverty unless you breed like rabbits.

Poverty is almost totally a matter of work hours--which is why attacking it via the minimum wage is doomed--it's not controlling factor.

Loren, I'm not afraid to say, I find myself agreeing with what you write quite often. This is an exception. People have sex because it's fun. Poor people have sex because it's fun and free. I believe it was Kurt Vonnegut who said in Breakfast of Champions: "Fucking is how babies are made." Shit happens.

Pregnancy is no more a likely hood in a poor household than a rich one. But the poor households somehow manage to have more pregnancies, and require assistance form the rich households to help them financially with the raising of their piece of shit kids.

This is what I have a problem with... the idea that people have some kind of 'right' to reproduce as much as they want, and then demand the 'system' accommodate their desire.

I need minimum wage to be $100 / hour so I can spend quality time with my 12 kids. FUCK-YOU! You gonna have to sell a few of dem kids, ya know.

 

[KeepTalking]

If you are already in poverty, chances that you will be able to find a full time job are not that great.

Hint: There's a reason you couldn't find a full time job. It's probably internal.

No, it's probably because you were in poverty to begin with, so unless you got extremely good grades, and were able to get a scholarship, you were unable to go to college. And people who are unable to go to college traditionally fell back on manufacturing jobs for full time employment, but we have shipped most of those jobs overseas, so now they have to work in food service, or retail, where most employees are made to work part time, whether they like it, or not. None of that is internal.

If you and your spouse work full time you won't be in poverty unless you breed like rabbits.

If you and your wife both work full time, are near poverty, and have even one child, chances are that daycare costs will break the bank. But whatever happened to the "nuclear family", where one member of the family can work full time, and and afford to raise a family of four? It is what right wingers want everyone to aspire to, but their reckless policies have destroyed the ability for most families to even get that far.

That was a fantasy, it never applied to the lower classes. It's just those lower classes were usually black or foreign and we didn't notice them.

Who is this "we" you are talking about? The lower class is expanding as the middle class is getting squeezed, and it is only going to get worse before it gets better.

Poverty is almost totally a matter of work hours--which is why attacking it via the minimum wage is doomed--it's not controlling factor.

And it's not the fault of the poor. Most will work full time if they are allowed to do so. We need to mandate a living wage for anyone working full time, but as you note, that is not enough. We also need to mandate that any employer with more than X number of employees must employ at least Y% of those employees full time*. In addition, we should not allow corporations to use franchising to skirt those rules.

While I understand the logic of requiring a certain % to be full time I don't think it works very well (company A has an office with consistent staffing 8-12/1-5, company B cooks from 8:30-10:30 and serves from 11-1 but is otherwise closed {food trucks providing lunch to construction sites}, their number of part time workers would be very different indeed.) Rather than try to deal with every case I think the easier fix is to remove the incentive: When benefits can reasonably be applied to part-timers (for example, vacation. They get the same number of vacation days, just at whatever their average hours/day was for the last year) are applied, the value of anything that can't be applied goes to the government.

Seems like a plausible solution to that part of the problem as well. But you also need to apply the living wage portion of the solution, rather than eliminating minimum wage as your original statement seems to imply.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Interesting how the goosestepping apologists for police shootings easily disregard the premise that being scared or even "extra careful" is neither a necessary nor sufficient humane justification for shooting the unarmed or the mentally ill.

Given that shootings of the unarmed mentally ill account for about 0.001% of police shootings, that has little bearing on general phenomena of high rates of police shootings by US cops, where lists of 1200 "killings" by cops per year are posted as evidence of police racism and murderous out of control incompetence.

That 1,200 figure includes things like cops hitting people lying in the road at night (good luck seeing them in time!) and things that happen in jails. It's not just police shootings.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Pregnancy is no more a likely hood in a poor household than a rich one. But the poor households somehow manage to have more pregnancies, and require assistance form the rich households to help them financially with the raising of their piece of shit kids.

This is what I have a problem with... the idea that people have some kind of 'right' to reproduce as much as they want, and then demand the 'system' accommodate their desire.

Yeah, a lot of people on the left have this loony idea that reproduction should somehow be without responsibility to care for their children.

However, I will disagree with you about the likelihood of pregnancy. One of the factors that separates poor from rich is how much care they take in their life. I would expect that on average there are more oopses in poor households and there is less ability to get an abortion in case of an oops.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Hint: There's a reason you couldn't find a full time job. It's probably internal.

No, it's probably because you were in poverty to begin with, so unless you got extremely good grades, and were able to get a scholarship, you were unable to go to college. And people who are unable to go to college traditionally fell back on manufacturing jobs for full time employment, but we have shipped most of those jobs overseas, so now they have to work in food service, or retail, where most employees are made to work part time, whether they like it, or not. None of that is internal.

Ever hear of student loans? You don't need extremely good grades to go to college.

And we haven't shipped most of those manufacturing jobs overseas. Far more have been lost to automation than to offshoring. I spent 20 years working for a manufacturing outfit--not one job was offshored (and the only outsourcing was of some new offerings, not of anything we already made)--but the ratio of employees to production dropped about 5 fold in those 20 years.

That was a fantasy, it never applied to the lower classes. It's just those lower classes were usually black or foreign and we didn't notice them.

Who is this "we" you are talking about? The lower class is expanding as the middle class is getting squeezed, and it is only going to get worse before it gets better.

The average person in the "good old days". And it's not actually that the middle class is getting squeezed, it's that the income scale is stretching out as technology makes bigger differences between the more productive and less productive workers. The "middle class" is "shrinking" only because the yardstick isn't being adjusted to the reality of the employment market. (Admittedly, trying to scale the yardstick properly is all but impossible. That doesn't mean it's readings are useful, though.)

While I understand the logic of requiring a certain % to be full time I don't think it works very well (company A has an office with consistent staffing 8-12/1-5, company B cooks from 8:30-10:30 and serves from 11-1 but is otherwise closed {food trucks providing lunch to construction sites}, their number of part time workers would be very different indeed.) Rather than try to deal with every case I think the easier fix is to remove the incentive: When benefits can reasonably be applied to part-timers (for example, vacation. They get the same number of vacation days, just at whatever their average hours/day was for the last year) are applied, the value of anything that can't be applied goes to the government.

Seems like a plausible solution to that part of the problem as well. But you also need to apply the living wage portion of the solution, rather than eliminating minimum wage as your original statement seems to imply.

I wasn't calling for the elimination of the minimum wage, just saying that raising it isn't the answer to poverty because poverty is far more a matter of hours than hourly rate.

As for the "living wage" test--I am categorically opposed. "Living wage" is a leftist codeword for "more". It needs to be clearly defined (such that a researcher can calculate the number), something the left never does.

 

[bilby]

Hahahahahahahahaha!

If you and your spouse work full time you won't be in poverty unless you breed like rabbits.

Oh yes, blame it on the children.... You crack me up.

Poverty is almost totally a matter of work hours--which is why attacking it via the minimum wage is doomed--it's not controlling factor.

That is the solution, just work more hours every day!

Laugh at your own ignorance if you want. Or do the math.

Did the math.

A single person earning $9 an hour working a full time schedule with no vacation or holidays makes $18,720. In a city like Detroit, a one-bedroom or studio apartment in the ghetto can cost anywhere between $500 and $700 monthly rent, or $6,000 to $7,400 per year. Deduct 20% for payroll taxes, take off another $3,744.

Poverty line for one person (2015): $11,770

18,720
-7,400
-3,744
$7,596,

20% for payroll taxes?

Income tax is $843
FICA is $1432
Total $2275

That's 12%.

As for the rest of it--people in that income range usually have a roommate!

That's right, introverts have no right to exist. Fuck them.

 

[barbos]

That's right, introverts have no right to exist. Fuck them.

Two introverts can coexist in one department.

 

[RavenSky]

It's interesting how those who typically jump to racism and unjustified use of force for most police shootings are focusing only on the poverty angle and ignoring the guns.

actually, it was our resident apologist for cops, Loren, who is focusing on the poverty part of the OP article.

Nevertheless, the article very c!early focused on the "third world poverty" in this country as well as the proliferation of guns.

 

[RavenSky]

Pregnancy is no more a likely hood in a poor household than a rich one. But the poor households somehow manage to have more pregnancies, and require assistance form the rich households to help them financially with the raising of their piece of shit kids.

This is what I have a problem with... the idea that people have some kind of 'right' to reproduce as much as they want, and then demand the 'system' accommodate their desire.

Yeah, a lot of people on the left have this loony idea that reproduction should somehow be without responsibility to care for their children.

However, I will disagree with you about the likelihood of pregnancy. One of the factors that separates poor from rich is how much care they take in their life. I would expect that on average there are more oopses in poor households and there is less ability to get an abortion in case of an oops.

Loren, I truly think your middle name is Poe.

 

[Rhea]

Pregnancy is no more a likely hood in a poor household than a rich one. But the poor households somehow manage to have more pregnancies, and require assistance form the rich households to help them financially with the raising of their piece of shit kids.

This is what I have a problem with... the idea that people have some kind of 'right' to reproduce as much as they want, and then demand the 'system' accommodate their desire.

Yeah, a lot of people on the left have this loony idea that reproduction should somehow be without responsibility to care for their children.

However, I will disagree with you about the likelihood of pregnancy. One of the factors that separates poor from rich is how much care they take in their life. I would expect that on average there are more oopses in poor households and there is less ability to get an abortion in case of an oops.

What?

"A lot of people on the left" are for free and accessible birth control and abortions through the second trimester and comprehensive sexuality education at multiple grade levels.

Poor households have nearly ZERO access to reliable long-term reversible birth control.
This isn't about "how much care they take in their life." This is about the cost of efficacy.
NO ONE on the right is supporting this. It is only supported by the left.

Talk about blaming the victim.

 

[KeepTalking]

No, it's probably because you were in poverty to begin with, so unless you got extremely good grades, and were able to get a scholarship, you were unable to go to college. And people who are unable to go to college traditionally fell back on manufacturing jobs for full time employment, but we have shipped most of those jobs overseas, so now they have to work in food service, or retail, where most employees are made to work part time, whether they like it, or not. None of that is internal.

Ever hear of student loans? You don't need extremely good grades to go to college.

Yes, I have, and they are the reason so many college students are starting their careers (provided they can get a job after graduating) $40,000 or more in debt. That kind of debt hanging over your head is a very effective way of keeping you in poverty for years to come.

And we haven't shipped most of those manufacturing jobs overseas. Far more have been lost to automation than to offshoring. I spent 20 years working for a manufacturing outfit--not one job was offshored (and the only outsourcing was of some new offerings, not of anything we already made)--but the ratio of employees to production dropped about 5 fold in those 20 years.

As is usual, your anecdotal evidence does not comport with reality:
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/12/11/outsourcing-to-china-cost-us-32-million-jobs-since-2001

Between 2001 and 2013, the expanded trade deficit with China cost the U.S. 3.2 million jobs, and three quarters of those jobs were in manufacturing, according to a report released Thursday from the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning Washington think tank. Those manufacturing jobs lost accounted for about two-thirds of all jobs lost within the industry over the 2001 to 2013 period.

That was a fantasy, it never applied to the lower classes. It's just those lower classes were usually black or foreign and we didn't notice them.

Who is this "we" you are talking about? The lower class is expanding as the middle class is getting squeezed, and it is only going to get worse before it gets better.

The average person in the "good old days". And it's not actually that the middle class is getting squeezed, it's that the income scale is stretching out as technology makes bigger differences between the more productive and less productive workers. The "middle class" is "shrinking" only because the yardstick isn't being adjusted to the reality of the employment market. (Admittedly, trying to scale the yardstick properly is all but impossible. That doesn't mean it's readings are useful, though.)

I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you back that up with some data.

Seems like a plausible solution to that part of the problem as well. But you also need to apply the living wage portion of the solution, rather than eliminating minimum wage as your original statement seems to imply.

I wasn't calling for the elimination of the minimum wage, just saying that raising it isn't the answer to poverty because poverty is far more a matter of hours than hourly rate.

As for the "living wage" test--I am categorically opposed. "Living wage" is a leftist codeword for "more".

It is well defined as the minimum wage necessary for a worker to meet their basic needs. Of course it varies by region, and over time. Just because it is not a single number that will work for every person forever, does not mean we cannot institute it.

It needs to be clearly defined (such that a researcher can calculate the number), something the left never does.

Why does "the left" have to do it? How about we let the researchers themselves do it:

http://livingwage.mit.edu/

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Ever hear of student loans? You don't need extremely good grades to go to college.

Yes, I have, and they are the reason so many college students are starting their careers (provided they can get a job after graduating) $40,000 or more in debt. That kind of debt hanging over your head is a very effective way of keeping you in poverty for years to come.

Go to a decent school and not one of those for-profit shams and it's a good way to improve your life.

And we haven't shipped most of those manufacturing jobs overseas. Far more have been lost to automation than to offshoring. I spent 20 years working for a manufacturing outfit--not one job was offshored (and the only outsourcing was of some new offerings, not of anything we already made)--but the ratio of employees to production dropped about 5 fold in those 20 years.

As is usual, your anecdotal evidence does not comport with reality:
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/12/11/outsourcing-to-china-cost-us-32-million-jobs-since-2001

Between 2001 and 2013, the expanded trade deficit with China cost the U.S. 3.2 million jobs, and three quarters of those jobs were in manufacturing, according to a report released Thursday from the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning Washington think tank. Those manufacturing jobs lost accounted for about two-thirds of all jobs lost within the industry over the 2001 to 2013 period.

Cherry-picking. Most of the jobs lost to automation had already been lost by then.

As for the "living wage" test--I am categorically opposed. "Living wage" is a leftist codeword for "more".

It is well defined as the minimum wage necessary for a worker to meet their basic needs. Of course it varies by region, and over time. Just because it is not a single number that will work for every person forever, does not mean we cannot institute it.

Then you need to define what constitutes "basic needs"--because you're basically describing the poverty line!

Why does "the left" have to do it? How about we let the researchers themselves do it:

http://livingwage.mit.edu/

Checking...Drop that crap.

Note how the wage varies depending on the worker's family situation. You can't run a labor market that way--if you tried to do that a single parent without good job skills would be completely unemployable.

I also note they are assuming no roommates.

 

[bilby]

Yes, I have, and they are the reason so many college students are starting their careers (provided they can get a job after graduating) $40,000 or more in debt. That kind of debt hanging over your head is a very effective way of keeping you in poverty for years to come.

Go to a decent school and not one of those for-profit shams and it's a good way to improve your life.

And we haven't shipped most of those manufacturing jobs overseas. Far more have been lost to automation than to offshoring. I spent 20 years working for a manufacturing outfit--not one job was offshored (and the only outsourcing was of some new offerings, not of anything we already made)--but the ratio of employees to production dropped about 5 fold in those 20 years.

As is usual, your anecdotal evidence does not comport with reality:
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/12/11/outsourcing-to-china-cost-us-32-million-jobs-since-2001

Between 2001 and 2013, the expanded trade deficit with China cost the U.S. 3.2 million jobs, and three quarters of those jobs were in manufacturing, according to a report released Thursday from the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning Washington think tank. Those manufacturing jobs lost accounted for about two-thirds of all jobs lost within the industry over the 2001 to 2013 period.

Cherry-picking. Most of the jobs lost to automation had already been lost by then.

As for the "living wage" test--I am categorically opposed. "Living wage" is a leftist codeword for "more".

It is well defined as the minimum wage necessary for a worker to meet their basic needs. Of course it varies by region, and over time. Just because it is not a single number that will work for every person forever, does not mean we cannot institute it.

Then you need to define what constitutes "basic needs"--because you're basically describing the poverty line!

Why does "the left" have to do it? How about we let the researchers themselves do it:

http://livingwage.mit.edu/

Checking...Drop that crap.

Note how the wage varies depending on the worker's family situation. You can't run a labor market that way--if you tried to do that a single parent without good job skills would be completely unemployable.

I also note they are assuming no roommates.

WTF is this 'roommates' crap?

Not everyone is gregarious. It's not mandatory to share one's home; and it is not reasonable to include it as a saving. They are also assuming no living in military style barracks, twenty to a room in bunks. Doing that would be incredibly cheap. Some people might even enjoy it - and if they do, and can save some money by living that way, good luck to them - but the idea that if they don't, then they can't complain if they can't afford the rent, is despicable.

The minimum standard to which the poorest should be allowed to fall is inevitably dependant upon the typical standard of living in their society. A Tanzanian peasant farmer expects less (economically speaking) from his life than a burger-flipper in Detroit, because psychologically, one's surroundings matter.

In a society where many people have a lot, those with little need more to avoid starvation (prices are set by what the market will pay, not by what the poorest participants in that market will pay), to avoid depression, and to avoid feeling justified in resorting to crime.

Making the poorest better off doesn't only help them; It helps YOU - by making it less likely that you will be mugged; less likely that you will be shot; and less likely that you will come home to find your house has been broken into and all your stuff stolen.

If you want nice things, you have to allow others to have at least some nice things, and at least some dignity. If you don't, they will come and take it by force.

 

[KeepTalking]

Yes, I have, and they are the reason so many college students are starting their careers (provided they can get a job after graduating) $40,000 or more in debt. That kind of debt hanging over your head is a very effective way of keeping you in poverty for years to come.

Go to a decent school and not one of those for-profit shams and it's a good way to improve your life.

Of course graduating from a decent college is a good way to improve your life, but that's not the point. The point is that no matter what school you go to, tuition is so high these days that with a student loan you start out your post graduate life so far in the hole, that it takes years to dig your way out. In the mean time, you are still living in poverty.

And we haven't shipped most of those manufacturing jobs overseas. Far more have been lost to automation than to offshoring. I spent 20 years working for a manufacturing outfit--not one job was offshored (and the only outsourcing was of some new offerings, not of anything we already made)--but the ratio of employees to production dropped about 5 fold in those 20 years.

As is usual, your anecdotal evidence does not comport with reality:
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/12/11/outsourcing-to-china-cost-us-32-million-jobs-since-2001

Between 2001 and 2013, the expanded trade deficit with China cost the U.S. 3.2 million jobs, and three quarters of those jobs were in manufacturing, according to a report released Thursday from the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning Washington think tank. Those manufacturing jobs lost accounted for about two-thirds of all jobs lost within the industry over the 2001 to 2013 period.

Cherry-picking. Most of the jobs lost to automation had already been lost by then.

It is not cherry picking, it is simply a specific date range. But at least it is actual data, rather than a shitty anecdote. If you have data for a longer time range, please present it or STFU.

As for the "living wage" test--I am categorically opposed. "Living wage" is a leftist codeword for "more".

It is well defined as the minimum wage necessary for a worker to meet their basic needs. Of course it varies by region, and over time. Just because it is not a single number that will work for every person forever, does not mean we cannot institute it.

Then you need to define what constitutes "basic needs"--because you're basically describing the poverty line!

It includes housing and associated utilities, clothing, and food. It is a bit above the poverty line, as those just above the poverty line can still qualify for public assistance. A person making a living wage would have no need for public assistance.

Why does "the left" have to do it? How about we let the researchers themselves do it:

http://livingwage.mit.edu/

Checking...Drop that crap.

Note how the wage varies depending on the worker's family situation. You can't run a labor market that way--if you tried to do that a single parent without good job skills would be completely unemployable.

I also note they are assuming no roommates.

Oh, the horror! They broke it down by the family size and working situation! How can we ever make any sense of it now?

I mean, we would have to decide which family situation we want to provide a living wage for, and then pick that column from the spreadsheet. That is just too difficult to do, so we can never ever provide a living wage.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Oh, the horror! They broke it down by the family size and working situation! How can we ever make any sense of it now?

I mean, we would have to decide which family situation we want to provide a living wage for, and then pick that column from the spreadsheet. That is just too difficult to do, so we can never ever provide a living wage.

That doesn't help matters. As I said, the chart they give renders low-skill (really, without college degree in almost all cases) single parents unemployable. If you pick a value that covers them you now have rendered everyone without a degree unemployable.

 

[KeepTalking]

Oh, the horror! They broke it down by the family size and working situation! How can we ever make any sense of it now?

I mean, we would have to decide which family situation we want to provide a living wage for, and then pick that column from the spreadsheet. That is just too difficult to do, so we can never ever provide a living wage.

That doesn't help matters. As I said, the chart they give renders low-skill (really, without college degree in almost all cases) single parents unemployable. If you pick a value that covers them you now have rendered everyone without a degree unemployable.

In what way does the chart do that?

As far as I can tell, it only gives living wages for a variety of different possible living wage implementations. If you advocate for a living wage for a single person with no family, there's a column for that, if you think a living wage should be provided for a family of 5 with only one person in the family working, there is a column for that. What it doesn't do is provide cover for your contention that no one is making any effort to provide data for living wage targets.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Pregnancy is no more a likely hood in a poor household than a rich one. But the poor households somehow manage to have more pregnancies, and require assistance form the rich households to help them financially with the raising of their piece of shit kids.

This is what I have a problem with... the idea that people have some kind of 'right' to reproduce as much as they want, and then demand the 'system' accommodate their desire.

Yeah, a lot of people on the left have this loony idea that reproduction should somehow be without responsibility to care for their children.

And apparently at this web board you won't be able to find one that feels as such. What a ridiculous thing to say.

However, I will disagree with you about the likelihood of pregnancy. One of the factors that separates poor from rich is how much care they take in their life. I would expect that on average there are more oopses in poor households and there is less ability to get an abortion in case of an oops.

Well, as long as you "expect" that, it must be true.

No, it's probably because you were in poverty to begin with, so unless you got extremely good grades, and were able to get a scholarship, you were unable to go to college. And people who are unable to go to college traditionally fell back on manufacturing jobs for full time employment, but we have shipped most of those jobs overseas, so now they have to work in food service, or retail, where most employees are made to work part time, whether they like it, or not. None of that is internal.

Ever hear of student loans? You don't need extremely good grades to go to college.

Ever heard of how many college grads today are having a hard time finding a job... and have that debt still.

I wasn't calling for the elimination of the minimum wage, just saying that raising it isn't the answer to poverty because poverty is far more a matter of hours than hourly rate.

As for the "living wage" test--I am categorically opposed. "Living wage" is a leftist codeword for "more". It needs to be clearly defined (such that a researcher can calculate the number), something the left never does.

Actually it is a leftist code word for "We are already subsidizing their food, their housing, their health care, their taxes, their fucking heating bill... maybe we all should stop pretending we aren't subsidizing all of that shit so we can buy a burger for $0.80 less than it would cost otherwise so we wouldn't have to pay their rent!". Which is why we use the code word because, as you can tell, it gets rather lengthy otherwise.