$15/hour minimum wage

[I left.]

Ah yes, the poor are poor because they are unworthy.

In a sense in some cases, yes, although it's a bad way of putting it.

[opebo]

In a sense in some cases, yes, although it's a bad way of putting it.

It can't be the case, since 'worthiness' has no bearing on class.

[Jackson]

A minimum wage is necessary, but instead of having a single minimum for everyone, it should be adjusted on a sliding scale based on the absolute minimum needs of the individual in question. So lets say a teenager, for example, could be paid less than a single mother trying to raise a couple of kids while working three jobs. This would also enable teenagers to have a chance to build up job experience that they can use later on when they are starting their careers because employers would have an incentive to hire them.

[danny]

A minimum wage is necessary, but instead of having a single minimum for everyone, it should be adjusted on a sliding scale based on the absolute minimum needs of the individual in question. So lets say a teenager, for example, could be paid less than a single mother trying to raise a couple of kids while working three jobs. This would also enable teenagers to have a chance to build up job experience that they can use later on when they are starting their careers because employers would have an incentive to hire them.

But if they are applying to the same jobs why would the employer take the single mother rather than the teenager.

[Cincinnatus]

A minimum wage is necessary, but instead of having a single minimum for everyone, it should be adjusted on a sliding scale based on the absolute minimum needs of the individual in question. So lets say a teenager, for example, could be paid less than a single mother trying to raise a couple of kids while working three jobs. This would also enable teenagers to have a chance to build up job experience that they can use later on when they are starting their careers because employers would have an incentive to hire them.

But if they are applying to the same jobs why would the employer take the single mother rather than the teenager.

Due to the fact that under the situation he described, the youth will have a lower minimum wage then say, a 26 year old Mother.  It'll be a trade-off for either experience, or a lower payroll.  Which, for already low-wage jobs won't make any difference to the employer, because simply picking a teenager will greatly benefit said employer (See: Clothing stores, food-chains, ect).

[opebo]

Better idea is to stick to a high minimum for everyone - at least $15/hour - and then provide free training at community colleges for teenagers.

[TheGlobalizer]

I don't know if this is appropriate to ask, but are you black?

I'm not.  And for what it's worth, I'm not talking about blacks, either.

You must be one of those compassionate conservatives I used to hear about 10 yrs ago.

These people need help not your ridicule.  Have you seen The Biggest Loser?  Those people look awful on day one.  I wouldn't hire a single one of them.  But with dedication, help, and hard work most of those people make a miraculous transformation.  Instead of W Bush spending $1 Trillion+ killing 600,000 Iraqis we spent $1 Trillion in the ghettos of this country can you imagine what our cities would be like?  Think about it.

No, I couldn't stand compassionate conservatives.  I prefer social Darwinism, it includes the appropriate set of incentives and disincentives.

I don't agree with the Iraq vs. ghettos money-spend argument.  I'd rather that money not be spent, or collected, in the first place.  It's a waste of money to engineer societies, either in the Middle East or in poor America.

And while the "Biggest Loser" analogy is amusing, the chronically overweight often return to heavy weight once the structure and emotional attention abates.  I wouldn't be in favor of spending money on weight loss classes for obese people, either; I'd just assume set fire to the cash in a can in my backyard, at least I'm spared the pretense.

Ah yes, the poor are poor because they are unworthy.

Worth commenting on.  I don't see how "worthiness" plays into any analysis of poverty.  No one deserves to be poor any more than they deserve to be rich.  The point is that economic and social structures that attempt to change outcomes are largely ineffective, as individuals often behave in a manner that achieves the outcomes appropriate the marginal cost that individual is willing to bear.

Said another way, if you want to succeed, work hard.  If you're of a limited skill set and education, "succeed" may be a relative term, but I've rarely seen someone of lower means unable to improve their lot in life through hard work (quite to the contrary).

Smart work, however -- skill-building, self-investment, etc. -- is even better.

I'm sure opebo thinks that Walmart workers "work hard" -- maybe some do, but most of time I'm in a Walmart, the workers can't be bothered to do much of anything.  They hardly have my sympathy.  (And I have stocked shelves in my life, so it's not some disconnectedness on my part.)

[Sibboleth]

The point is that economic and social structures that attempt to change outcomes are largely ineffective, as individuals often behave in a manner that achieves the outcomes appropriate the marginal cost that individual is willing to bear.

This is demonstrably untrue, as anyone with even a vague knowledge of the history of social policy could tell you.

[TheGlobalizer]

The point is that economic and social structures that attempt to change outcomes are largely ineffective, as individuals often behave in a manner that achieves the outcomes appropriate the marginal cost that individual is willing to bear.

This is demonstrably untrue, as anyone with even a vague knowledge of the history of social policy could tell you.

If you can't be bothered to explain in detail, care to provide an example?

[Sibboleth]

If you can't be bothered to explain in detail, care to provide an example?

I operate on the basis that a certain level of basic knowledge ought to be assumed, and that there is no point in providing that basic level of knowledge to those that don't know it but who choose to comment regardless.

But I suppose I could just suggest that you make yourself familiar with the history of Sweden (an extreme example, I admit) in the twentieth century if you thank attempts to alter the structure of society in order to improve 'outcomes' are always total failures that change nothing.

Essentially, I dislike these grand claims about human nature.

[opebo]

Said another way, if you want to succeed, work hard. 

I'm sure opebo thinks that Walmart workers "work hard" -- maybe some do, but most of time I'm in a Walmart, the workers can't be bothered to do much of anything.  They hardly have my sympathy.

So.. the 'hardness' of work is determined by how much sympathy the toils elicit in an observer?  Hardly what I would have expected from a tough guy social Darwinist such as yourself.

[TheGlobalizer]

If you can't be bothered to explain in detail, care to provide an example?

I operate on the basis that a certain level of basic knowledge ought to be assumed, and that there is no point in providing that basic level of knowledge to those that don't know it but who choose to comment regardless.

But I suppose I could just suggest that you make yourself familiar with the history of Sweden (an extreme example, I admit) in the twentieth century if you thank attempts to alter the structure of society in order to improve 'outcomes' are always total failures that change nothing.

Essentially, I dislike these grand claims about human nature.

Well, I wasn't making a grand claim, more disputing the contrary grand claim.

Can you point me to some reading on 20th century Sweden?  Wikipedia is rather sparse on the topic and I expect you're alluding to something specific (presumably the building of a robust social welfare state).

I also wouldn't say that societal structures cannot affect outcomes; my point was that social engineering efforts, specifically in disenfranchised subpopulations (e.g., the urban poor) tend to have limited effect in reversing underlying causes or trends.  To the contrary, unified national trends can and do affect outcomes.  This is how I'd view something like the civil rights era in the US; when it was a national identity movement (rejection of post-slavery racism in the south), it had an effect; as the goals of the civil rights movement became less universal and ran afoul of more mainstream viewpoints (e.g., the transition from a focus on equal opportunity to equal outcomes) the movement lost considerable steam and gravitas.

Said another way, the specific political/economic history of a subgroup does not often fundamentally alter that subgroup's interaction with or place in society as a whole.  Integration of that subgroup into society, and elimination of the subgroup's boundaries, is the most effective way to empower those then-former members of the subgroup.

That's just my general view -- certainly open to considering counterexamples.

Said another way, if you want to succeed, work hard. 

I'm sure opebo thinks that Walmart workers "work hard" -- maybe some do, but most of time I'm in a Walmart, the workers can't be bothered to do much of anything.  They hardly have my sympathy.

So.. the 'hardness' of work is determined by how much sympathy the toils elicit in an observer?  Hardly what I would have expected from a tough guy social Darwinist such as yourself.

What a bizarre interpretation of what I said.  I view working at Walmart as a cake job; thus, Walmart workers do not have my sympathy for having to do their jobs.