What people with minimum wage can really afford in the US?

[opebo]

No, Everrett, charity is offensive.

What you're proposing *is* charity...

No, redistribution by the State is not charity - the money is retrieved from the owning class by force (just as it was allocated to them in the first place), and is thus not a voluntary contribution by them to their minions like charity.

[nlm]

http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm

Because I'm European I can't really know. What people with minimum wage can afford if she or he works 40 hours in week? Can she or he get some government welfare? What is situation with children? And I want some MODERATE people to answer this.

The short answer is; you can scrap by the skin on your teeth and have no hope for the future if you can not get beyond minimum wage or something close to it. You also better hope nothing goes wrong in your life. Check out the poverty stats for the US, they tell a story, not a complete one but a meaningful one.

The middle class in the US is also starting to feel some heat. A great deal of what is to come will hinge upon mortgage rates and all the poor saps in the middle class that signed on to no money down interest only adjustable rate loans. Health care is also becoming an issue for the middle class and a number of factors are working against today’s middle class having retirement goals that are similar to those of people not that long ago (which should be noted were far superior to those of people that came a generation or two before them).

Generally speaking Huckleberry, it would appear that the living standard for the average or below average folks in the US is heading downwards while the living standard for the wealthiest is going up sharply. It's has cultural, political and social causes, but it hasn't come to a point where people find it more important than what ever the big social issue of the day is, so the good folks of the US will remain distracted for a while longer. It's an 11th hour sort of country.

[John Dibble]

No, Everrett, charity is offensive.

Then tell your parents how offensive they are being to you - you live entirely on their charity. Get a job and become self-sufficient if you think it's so god damned offensive, you hypocrite.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's being charitable with other people's money(you take the money, then you voluntarily give it to someone else), and it is no less a handout. Heck, I'd find that more offensive - not only would you think I'm poor enough that I need a handout, but you think I'm so poor that you actually are willing to steal the money of others in order to give me that handout.

[angus]

http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm

interesting map.  I had no idea what the minimum wage was, or that states could have lower minimum wages than the federal government.  My assumption is that those states with a lower one, or with none, must abide by the federal one.  It's apparently 5.15 per hour.  If you work 40 hours per week for, oh, let's say 50 weeks per year (to keep the math easy), then your gross is 2000 times 5.15, or 10300 US dollars per year.  I imagine the taxes are very low on that wage.  Let's neglect them, or say that it's not more than 300 total after deductions and the like.  So you basically have a net minimum wage of ten thousand dollars per year.  My guess is that rent alone would eat most of that money.  You could live with roommates and get by paying 3000 per year rent.  That leaves you 7000, of which, if you're single, you'd spend most of it on clothes and the like.  My guess is that you'd have little or nothing to spend on vacations to the caribbean, or Asia, or whereever you want to go.  Little to spend on luxury commodities such as music and entertainment and hookers and drugs.  All in all, I'd have to agree with dazzleman:  not much.

In any case, if you're not independently wealthy and if you want to live alone without spousal or parental support, you don't want the minimum wage job.  Luckily, the vast majority of those who have minimum wage jobs are teenagers in middle-class suburbs who are just looking for a little extra entertainment money.  Unfortunately for them, such jobs aren't always available precisely because of the minimum wage law.  Which is all the more reason to do away with the minimum wage laws.  It's easy to show, if we assume Price Theory postulates such as freedom of mobility, that all the minimum wage does is create an artificially high price for labor, and a situation in which the supply of labor exceeds demand.  Thus unemployment.  Since the minimum wage law doesn't guarantee a livable wage (and it's really hard to say that it does), and since it clearly contributes to unemployment, then we should end it.  My guess is that the AFLCIO lobbies hard to keep it, though, and they're a pretty powerful lobby, so it's likely be around for the forseeable future.

You also asked about welfare and children.  Yes, if you make less than some specified amount.  I think it's 1.5 times the poverty level, or about 32 thousand dollars for a family of four, then you get some free medicines and free food for the children.  So there is federal money to be had.  And it's not hard to get, but you do have to qualify.  At the moment I can't think of anyone I know personally that would.  But such people do exist because I see them buing WIC stuff and using food stamps and waiting around for indigent care providers.  Not a pretty sight.  State monies exist as well.  That varies greatly from state to state.  Usually, if you live in a state that has state money to give away, it's also a state in which the rent is high.  Sort of the dilemma.

Huge research grants and business grants, on the other hand, are not as hard to get.  My advice is if you're working class, go the white collar route instead of the blue collar route.  You'll be much better off.  Our society is set up pretty well for white collar folks, but it's a bitch to be blue collar in the USA, I have to imagine.  I think I agree with the leftists on that fine point.  I disagree with their solution, though.  The nice thing about the USA is that anyone can become a lawyer, a physician, a businessman, if he is so inclined and is willing to put forth the effort.  It's not like that everywhere.  And if we start in with the authoritarian tinkering with the structure of the society, it may not always be like that here.

[opebo]

Unfortunately for them, such jobs aren't always available precisely because of the minimum wage law.  Which is all the more reason to do away with the minimum wage laws.  It's easy to show, if we assume Price Theory postulates such as freedom of mobility, that all the minimum wage does is create an artificially high price for labor, and a situation in which the supply of labor exceeds demand.  Thus unemployment.  Since the minimum wage law doesn't guarantee a livable wage (and it's really hard to say that it does), and since it clearly contributes to unemployment, then we should end it.  My guess is that the AFLCIO lobbies hard to keep it, though, and they're a pretty powerful lobby, so it's likely be around for the forseeable future.

What garbage, as usual, angus.  Why would we want more teenagers (if that were really who were making minimum wage) to be working getting an even lower rate of pay?  I can certainly see why owners would want that to be the situation, but why should you?   Or the teenager?  Or for that matter the great majority of the electorate who are working-class?  No, a preferrable solution for the abovementioned majority would be to raise the minimum to a livable level - say $15/hour - and if it created unemployement (a dubious assertion), simply take care of that with a generous welfare state.  Think of this in terms of preferences - why shouldn't most people prefer that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Such programs offer only ridiculously small amounts of money or subsidy.  They are greatly inadequate to deal with the poverty caused by the system.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm sure you are aware that this is not an option for these people.  Your suggestion to the oppressed to just stop being oppressed isn't funny, and in fact is quite offensive - it is always unpleasant to kick people when they are down, angus.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This has to be one of the most ridiculous assertions you have ever made on the board!  What utter nonsense.  These people have no options.  Try to look at reality, not your Horatio Alger fantasy. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It isn't like that here, obviously.  In fact social mobility is far greater in many other countries, including most Western European ones, than in the US with its near Latin-American levels of inequality and dearth of redistribution.  There is simply no way for the poorest to 'get ahead' in the US, angus.

[Dr. Cynic]

Why do you care?

Because, and I know this may shock you, some people care about more than just themselves. I have a friend in school whose father works two jobs, and he works a job, and they still struggle. At this point I'm thinking either the prices should go down, or the pay should go up. And, since we know that prices aren't going down anytime soon, then the paycheck should increase.

[angus]

Obviously I may be mistaken, and I'm not so much looking for a fight but rather to try to answer Huckleberry finn's question.  It would be nice to have some statistics on workers if we're going to try to have this argument.  I admit that I have none.  Clearly neither do you.  But I will try to answer your questions:

If I were 16 years old and had lots of free time and no money and no bills to pay (which would likely be the case if I were 16 years old) then I might try to find a part-time job.  In fact, when I was 16 I did several part-time jobs.  I often tutored, under the table, no tax.  It suited me.  We'd agree upon a fee, usually a per-hour rate 4 or 5 times what the going minimum wage (it was 3.50 at the time I think), and I probably spent twenty hours per week doing this during my 11th and 12 grade years--Thank goodness for dumb kids with rich parents!  They kept me going--During the semesters, of course.  During Christmas and summer break I sometimes took jobs as well.  Those would be typically blue collar jobs in the private sector.  I was a cable TV service person, for example, for several summers.  I was lucky to get the job.  It paid minimum wage.  I had no complaints, all I needed was money for fuel, drugs, and underage drinking.  I'd have accepted less if that's what I'd been offered, or was unable to negotiate more.  Again I was fortunate to get a job at all.  And not everyone was so lucky.  Lots of kids around in the summer, and a limited supply of jobs.  If a company has X dollars to spend on summer help per hour, and the government specifies a rate of five dollars per head, then the company has X/5 dollars per head per hour to spend.  So it can hire X/5 workers per hour.  But if the company is allowed to pay 2.5 dollars per hour, it can hire X/2.5 workers per hour, given its capital constraints.  Clearly X/5 is less than X/2.5  Half as much, in fact.  So at 2.50 per hour a company can hire twice as many workers, for a given total expenditure, than it can at 5.00 per hour.  Limiting the number of workers it can hire is exactly what the government is doing with the minimum wage laws.  This isn't exactly the standard textbook argument against minimum wage, as those involve drawing the Supply curve and the Demand curve for labor, with dollars versus number of laborers, and putting the equilibrium price and quantity of labor at the intersection point of the two curves.  but you know all this.  So why are we having this discussion?

As to "livability"  Again, I'd think that it's up to the worker to ascertain a livable wage, through negotiation.  This can best be done via preparation.  Skills can be easily acquired.  And I repeat that anyone who can read and fill out a form can get free money for college in this country.  And if that isn't enough.  (Say, you want to go to Private U. instead of Podunk State U.)  Then you can borrow.  But be careful, borrowing means you'll have to pay it back.  There are many physicians and attorneys and businessmen in this country who came from very humble origins.  My own grandparents were poor european white trash immigrants who put each of their nine children (on my father's side) and each of their eight children (on my mother's side) through school.  Liebermann is always going on about his milkman father.  There are a million stories like this. 

I can't comment on your ridicule of subsidiary money to women with children.  You may be right.  The apparent circumstances of the women I see paying for food with food stamps.  But you don't offer statistics, and neither do I.  But I'll cede on that point, just for the sake of brevity.

Still, the thread is primarily about minimum wage, and whether a person can afford much on it.  We seem to agree that the answer is that you probably cannot live well on ten thousand dollars a year.  I'm just going on to say something broader:  the case for doing away with it is a stronger case than keeping it.  Now, you are making a broader statement as well:  the case for making it greater is a stronger case than that for doing away with it.  On that point you and I disagree.  Because making it higher would only mean more unemployment.  How do you deal with that additional burden?

as far as what's written below that, I think your anti-US bigotry is getting the better of you and you aren't being rational.  but I will debate you on the issue of raising vs doing away with the minimum wage on rational economic terms.

[dazzleman]

Good points, angus, as usual.

The key goal is to empower people, and encourage them to take charge of their own destiny in a positive way.  This is the most effective anti-poverty program there is, as your examples attest to from your own family.

It's a pity that the vast majority of our anti-poverty programs have done the exact opposite, and therefore exacerbated poverty rather than reducing it.  Subsidies and redistribution, as well as absolving people of any responsibility for their own decisions and actions, do nothing to help people to take control of their own destiny.  In fact, they do just the opposite, which is why they have failed so miserably when utilized.  Apparently, opebo is ignorant of the actual results of these policies.

[opebo]

If I were 16 years old and had lots of free time and no money and no bills to pay..

When I was sixteen I remember considering a 'job', and when I learned what they paid I didn't bother - it was a ridiculously small amount.  Even though I was aware my parents were well-off, they gave me very little actual cash, so that wasn't why I declined employement.  I actually didn't spend very much - it seemed preferrable than the types of low-paid jobs taht were available.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The worker has no power to negotiate - he's completely replaceable.  Absent regulation, he will be likely to get the barest substitence possible. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wrong, the 'free money' is very inadequate to cover the cost of even a State school, and of course there are far fewer of even such inadequate scholarships available than there are students who cannot afford to attend.  Also, undergraduate student loans are limited to very small amounts of money - something like like $2,500 or so the first year, rising to $10,500 in the senior year, I believe.  And of course, even these inadequate programs were provided by liberals and will soon be undermined by the Republicans.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They may have put their children through school, but most poor parents do not - even if this is just a choice on their part, that young person has no chance at all. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, there are many, due to liberalism.  But there are probably 100 times as many stories (never told of course) of working class people who remained poor.  In any case, this one way out you have used as a defense of your argument is as I said based on liberalism, and as such is being undermined as we type by your party.  I beleive I read something just months ago about the student loan program being cut by the Republican congress even more.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I already told you - a generous welfare state.  Paid for of course by heavy taxes upon the owner class which recieves most of society's production.

 

[opebo]

The key goal is to empower people, and encourage them to take charge of their own destiny in a positive way.  This is the most effective anti-poverty program there is, as your examples attest to from your own family.

So provide free education.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

These pathetic, minimal, inadquate programs of which you speak did nothing.  What do you think they were supposed to do, eliminate poverty?  Poverty is endemic in the capitalist system.  The only purpose of those programs was to alleviate suffering, which I think they did a little, and might have done effectively if they had spent about quadruple the money.

[John Dibble]

No, Everrett, charity is offensive.

Then tell your parents how offensive they are being to you - you live entirely on their charity. Get a job and become self-sufficient if you think it's so god damned offensive, you hypocrite.

No suprise that opebo fails to comment, as usual when I bring this up.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I have no idea how people who work minimum wage or just above minimum wage get by.

$5.15. an hour * 40 hours per week= $206-7.65% Social Security/Medicare tax - 15% federal withholding = $159.24 take home pay per week

Monthly take home pay = $636.96

Where I live, the lowest rent you could possibly find would be about $450-$600 for a studio apartment. If you have a roommate, you can find a decent 2-bedroom for about $1,000 (not counting utilities)/month.  And how do you buy food and find transportation? And what about health insurance?

Again, I have no idea how these people get by. The minimum wage is woefully inadequate and should be raised to about $7.50 an hour over the next 3-4 years.

I am not a "living wage" advocate, but the minimum wage needs to be raised ASAP.

You rather over calculated the amount of Federal income tax.  A single person making the minimum wage will after the standard deductions and the Earned Income Tax Credit owe $152 in Federal income tax or about 1.5% not 15%.  However, you left out other various other taxes, such as State income tax, that are applicable.  $170/week for a representative take home pay.  At that level of income, you likely are looking for a roommate to share a one bedroom or even a studio apartment.  It would be cramped, but doable, or perhaps you'd prefer a mobile home.  Anyway getting one's housing costs down to below $500/month is doable, if not exactly comfortable. (And I am including utilities there, at least for South Carolina.) Transportation, clothing, etc. all have costs too, but there's enough there to pay for the basics  It would be a rather spartan existance, but it is possible to live on minimum wage.

The major area of worry would be health care costs.  The working poor really get shafted there.  A single person earning the minimum wage makes enough to not be eligible for Medicaid in South Carolina. They likely will not be able to afford insurance, and our current system causes the uninsured to be left with higher medical costs than the insured, as the insurance companies use their clout to get discounts that the uninsured cannot.

The problem therefore is not the minimum wage, but health care reform to bridge the gap between those eligible for Medicaid and those able to afford private health insurance.

[angus]

I already told you - a generous welfare state.  Paid for of course by heavy taxes upon the owner class which recieves most of society's production.

a generous offer.  of course it's radical, and we don't have a model to determine how it might function.  and you can be sure some would argue that it's unconstitutional. 

by the way, I have no party.  I have, in the past, been a member of various parties, including the Democrat Party, the Republican Party, the Socialist Party, and the Massachusetts Revolutionary Workers party.  In some cases by voter registration and in other by membership dues.  Of course, I came to realize that many of those groups have been sold on some bunk ideas, or are simply naive.  In any case, currently I am not a member of any political party, nor am I looking to join any.  My position on this issue, however, is closest to the Libertarian Party position.  And they're not undermining anything.  They have little, if any, authority on this or any other issue.  They do have a few good ideas though.  Glad we got that cleared up.

Okay, so your claim is that we can have entrepreneurs cough up the dough to give everyone enough money to afford whatever they may wish.  And moreover you seem to be under the impression that such an approach is feasible.  So what will this cost?  Haven't though about it?  Fair enough.  Let's estimate.  It costs about 20 grand per head to live.  At least at some base level.  But then that assumes current market conditions.  Under your scheme, ever more people can afford to step up to better accomodations, which would no doubt drive up rental rates?  Do you also plan to freeze rent?  Fair enough.  I hope you don't mind having your working class people sleep in the cold, because rent controls lead to housing shortages.  Not only theoretically for the same reasons that minimum wage drives up unemployment, but as a practical and empirical matter as well.

And can you assume that those who fund the research whereby the "plumbers of the world" discover the technologies that make your life more comfortable would continue to do so if you remove the most fundamental human motivation, greed?  Somebody has a frank zappa quote in his signature which sums that up pretty well. 

[dazzleman]

angus, you're still trying to talk sense to that guy?

[angus]

Hey, shouldn't you be spewing misogyny?  or something. 

[dazzleman]

Hey, shouldn't you be spewing misogyny?  or something. 

Well, let's see.  I'm a fascist, racist, mysoginist, arrogant prude.  I'm sure I've forgotten a few.

It's when guys like opebo like you that you have to worry.

[opebo]

No, Everrett, charity is offensive.

Then tell your parents how offensive they are being to you - you live entirely on their charity. Get a job and become self-sufficient if you think it's so god damned offensive, you hypocrite.

No suprise that opebo fails to comment, as usual when I bring this up.

What do you expect me to say to such a pointless post?  Of course I won't get a job, and there is nothing hypocritical about it.  In fact the hypocrisy is on your part, as the purpose of your capitalist system is to provide owners with leisure.

[opebo]

I already told you - a generous welfare state.  Paid for of course by heavy taxes upon the owner class which recieves most of society's production.

a generous offer.  of course it's radical, and we don't have a model to determine how it might function.  and you can be sure some would argue that it's unconstitutional.

People will always argue something is 'unconstitutional'.  Opinions about that document are as various as are interests and classes.  It all depends on whether you have 5 out of the 9 votes.  Now as for a model, of course we have that in various European countries, particularly in Scandinavia and the Benelux region. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The 'libertarian' position is for practical purposes identical to that of the Religious Party on economics, and of course in addition the practical effect of being a 'Libertarian' is to support the Religious party.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, owners.  The term 'entrepreneur' has all sorts of false and misleading connotations, and is best left where it belongs - in right wing propaganda.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What a load of nonsense, angus!  Of course I would not 'freeze rent' - if the price went up I would simply tax the rich more to pay for it.  Anyway it would not go up, and there are myriad ways to make sure it doesn't.  For example prior to 1986 there was a huge tax break on rental property, ensuring an oversupply of apartments and low rents.  I assure you, angus, it is very easy for the State to manipulate your supposedly all powerful market.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My proposals would not effect greed much at all, angus.  The rich would still be rich, perched at the pinnacle of society's heirarchy.  The heirarchy would just be slightly less brutally steep, and they would have been relieved of a portion of what the State gave them in the first place. 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Now generally I can't be bothered to wade through all the foolish crap you post in any long post on this sort of subject, but I would like to ask you to stop saying this:

Now as for a model, of course we have that in various European countries, particularly in Scandinavia and the Benelux region

The economic and welfare setups of the various Scandinavian countries are completely different to the likes of Belgium or the Netherlands. In other words, you are either ignorant or a liar...

[angus]

Well, of course the Libertarians and Republicans agree on many issues, but I am niether.  Certainly I have never been a libertarian.  For example I support strong publicly funded education, and am not completely sold on vouchers; I support maintaining a standing army and navy; I do not think having income taxes is anathematic; I like having nice roads, sidewalks, and hospitals.  I'm just saying I agree with their position on a few issues (you seem to as well, by the way).  In particular, although I have not always felt this way, I have come to understand that minimum wage tends to increase employment in our society.  Again, I just wanted to clarify that I have no allegiance to any party.  I try to take all candidates for all offices seriously, and I take each proposition put on the ballot individually and do not let any party's official stand influence my vote.  Although you can certainly find instances where I have overlap on some issue with Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Socialist, Green, and perhaps others as well.  Here, my view is decidedly libertarian.  Just wanted again to clarify that I have no partisan loyalties.

Okay, it's interesting that you bring up scandanavia and benelux countries.  First, as Al points out they are radically different.  Secondly, what they are doing may not work so well given our structure.  (Although I think the Netherlander system is slighly a better fit.  But even it may not be workable).  More interesting, though, is that every year, consistently, the Scandanavian countries (Sweden, Norway, and Denmark), the benelux countries (Netherland, Belgium, Luxembourg), and two North American countries (Canada, USA), along with Australia round out the top eight UN human development indices.  Trondheim has observed that aggregate GDP and per capita GDP are not really good measures of a society's "success"  And apparently many millions of people agree.  Among them the United Nations statisticians.  So the HDI was developed as a measure by which to compare countries.  It's a number, on a scale of zero to one, which is a weighted average of a country's wealth, educational levels, and overall health, as measured by PPP, percent literacy ("high" and "low"), and longevity.  Countries with HDI greater than .800 are called "highly developed" (there are about 20 such countries), countries with HDI between .500 and.800 are "medium", and countries with HDI less than .500 are "low" on the scale of human development.  It's arbitrary as well, of course, but it's an agreed-upon standard and generally corresponds to how well people live.  E.g., Sweden's on top, Burkina Faso's at bottom.  Not surprising.

Now, what is amazing is that a country like the USA would even be in the same ballpark as small, densely populated, ethnically homogenous, former monarchies, with no common borders with poor countries, and little racial, religious, and ethnic strife among various factions of the nation.  The USA is a huge country, and is one of the five most populous.  And has people from every cult, culture, creed, and color imaginable.  There are streets in New York where you can hear a hundred languages being spoken along a fifteen block stretch.  One-seventh of our population are descendants of african slaves who were denied literacy and the acquisition of job skills for centuries.  We share a 2000-mile border with a medium-to-low development country.  A large one (tenth most populous worldwide) at that!  We have a government form which hasn't changed much since 1787 and one that prohibits radical changes in social programs without the permission of lots of bureaucrats.  That we are even comparable to those other seven nations is remarkable.  A big, diverse country like this should, by all logic, be more comparable to Brazil or Indonesia or Russia or India (though not china) in its HDI.  But it's actually more like Netherland and Denmark.  Their HDIs are all remarkably closely grouped.  We must be doing something right.

Now, you can argue that the HDI only considers means, and not standard deviations and variances.  I agree, 0.90 plus or minus 0.01 is much different than 0.90 plus or minus 0.1.  Big difference.  So the scale may eventually be adjusted to reflect the "gaps" between the well-educated and the uneducated, the rich and the poor, then healthy and the unhealthy.  Still, it's a pretty objective sort of measure, and we're up there with tiny, wealthy, culturally homogenous nations protected from mass in-migration by having only borders with other similar nations.

Back to your welfare solution.  Well, of course I don't advocate the complete destruction of all welfare.  I have never advocated denial of WIC or indigent medical treatment, at taxpayer expense, to the truly destitute.  I think we are a generous people.  Republicans and Libertarians included.  I was glad when my university offered unused dorm space, at state and taxpayer expense, to some two hundred Katrina refugees for an entire semester, free to the refugees and available on a first-come, first-served basis.  But if you think what works in Sweden will work here you are mistaken.

I'll get back to you with a more detailed argument in a moment.  Let me get some statistics.  And have a banana.  And some coffee.  And play with my son.  And prepare a physics exam for next week.  But I think it's easy to show that having zero minimum wage, with a reasonable unemployment insurance, and a reasonable welfare program for single pregnant mothers and senior citizens, is more efficient and better suited to our society than the Welfare State you hint at but don't completely describe.  But first I must do some other things.

[opebo]

Now as for a model, of course we have that in various European countries, particularly in Scandinavia and the Benelux region

The economic and welfare setups of the various Scandinavian countries are completely different to the likes of Belgium or the Netherlands. In other words, you are either ignorant or a liar...

No, you are a poor reader.  What do the differences between Belgium and Sweden have to do with my point?  Both are better than the US, and either would make a great model.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No, you are a poor reader.

Er... how exactly?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Everything

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you actually know anything about either? Are you aware (for example) of the severe social problems seen in Belgium and the Netherlands in recent years?

[opebo]

In particular, although I have not always felt this way, I have come to understand that minimum wage tends to increase employment in our society.

Whether or not that is so is of no interest to me, as I wouldn't mind more unemployment. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not sure what 'structure' you are talking about.. plutocracy? Suburbanization/segregation?  Anyway, whatever structure you are refering to can simply be changed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously the difference is that in the US the top 10 or 20% of the population have a great 'HDI', while the lower half has an atrocious one.  In the above mentioned countries the human developement is spread around a bit more. How about an HDI refering to the median?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't consider those 'diversity is worse than homogeniety' or 'bigger is worse than smaller' excuses to make any sense.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have no idea what those math terms are, but I agree that the number is worthless if it doesn't show that the lower portions of society also have great deal of human developement - something that is clearly not the case in the US.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, in general Americans are not generous, nor are Republicans, nor libertarians.  And any generousity the wealthy do show to their inferiors is based upon their power over them, and therefore of no value.  It is like expecting the man under your bootheel to be grateful when  you shift some weight to the other foot.  The whole problem remains that you are standing on him.

[opebo]

No, you are a poor reader.

and either would make a great model.

Do you actually know anything about either? Are you aware (for example) of the severe social problems seen in Belgium and the Netherlands in recent years?
[/quote]

Of course I do not know any detail - such things are not very important, and can be worked out as you go along.  The main point is that they provide more redistribution, and a more generous welfare state than the US.  I haven't heard of any 'social problems' in Belgium or the Netherlands lately - are you talking about Muslims?  In any case, I'm sure whatever their problems may be they pale by comparison to the endemic miseries that constitute life in these United States.

I'd still enormously prefer to be a Dutch or a Belgian any day rather than an American.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Of course I do not know any detail

Suprise, suprise

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not so, dolt. They are *very* important. You should learn to shut up about things that you're totally ignorant of.