Economic Systems (different version)

[A18]

What percentage of the bottom 90% benefit from the minimum wage, or farm subsidies (corporate welfare), or Social Security, which takes their money and gives it back to them?

[opebo]

What percentage of the bottom 90% benefit from the minimum wage, or farm subsidies (corporate welfare), or Social Security, which takes their money and gives it back to them?

Alas, not many.  We need more such programs, and a higher minimum wage.

[A18]

So how are they going to become 'utterly improverished' when they're gone (which seems unlikely to happen for another 100 years)?

[opebo]

So how are they going to become 'utterly improverished' when they're gone (which seems unlikely to happen for another 100 years)?

Point well taken.  They are mostly already impoverished, as one can see by simply driving around (as I do around St.Louis).  But they are getting progressively worse off, due to three things:
1) the owners have found other sources of cheaper labour
2) the unions are almost gone
3) the minimum wage has been allowed to decline in real terms to below subsistence level.

[A18]

You said the BOTTOM 90%!

Not 1%, not 2%, 90%!

Well, guess what? The bottom 90% is not unemployed.

Most people do not make minimum wage, nor would they benefit from an increase. Certainly not 90%.

[opebo]

You said the BOTTOM 90%!

Not 1%, not 2%, 90%!

Well, guess what? The bottom 90% is not unemployed.

Most people do not make minimum wage, nor would they benefit from an increase. Certainly not 90%.

Yes, the bottom 90% are certainly working class.  If you read my post you would see that I carefully listed 3 causes of impoverishment, only one of which was the lack of a reasonable minimum wage. 

[A18]

And I responded to two of them. The lack of unions is not impoverishing the bottom 90% either.

[opebo]

And I responded to two of them. The lack of unions is not impoverishing the bottom 90% either.

It is impoverishing a great many people. 

Certainly the unions are the only reason any working-class people ever rose above poverty-level wages in the first place.

[A18]

A minimum wage increase is not going to benefit even a substantial percentage of the bottom 90%. Agree or disagree?

The bottom 90% is not being utterly improverished, as you claimed, due to lack of jobs. Agree or disagree?

Wages are set by market influences. Unions are not necessary, and not everyone does a bunch of unskilled labor.

[opebo]

A minimum wage increase is not going to benefit even a substantial percentage of the bottom 90%. Agree or disagree?

Disagree.  An increase to $15/hour would benefit the entire lower half of the population.

The bottom 90% is not being utterly improverished, as you claimed, due to lack of jobs. Agree or disagree?

Disagree.  They lack jobs that pay enough to avoid being poor.  Additionally, if they lose even these starvation level jobs, they immediately fall into utter destitution and even homelessness.

Wages are set by market influences. Unions are not necessary, and not everyone does a bunch of unskilled labor.

It is precisely because wages are set by market influences that most people become poor.  The only way to avoid poverty for the working class is to emeliorate market influences with a very high miniumum wage and encourage unionization.  Any resultant unemployment can be solved with a generous welfare state for the poor to relax in.  As for 'skills' those only represent a very ephemeral advantage in the marketplace, but I would be all for free univerisity education for the working class, as well as free technical education and 'retraining'.

[DanielX]

1890 is good all you need is some restrictions on monopolies and trusts to keep companies from hurting consumers.

Pretty much. Probably the closest to ideal economic system would be the US approximately 1910.

Are you, DanielX, a millionaire?

Not even close. I want to be one someday, though.

[opebo]

1890 is good all you need is some restrictions on monopolies and trusts to keep companies from hurting consumers.

Pretty much. Probably the closest to ideal economic system would be the US approximately 1910.

Are you, DanielX, a millionaire?

Not even close. I want to be one someday, though.

Well, good luck with that.  Though the odds are against you, it is possible.  One thing to consider though - you will probably be an old man by the time you attain that goal.  Life after about 60 or 65 isn't actually worth much.

I would recommend enjoying the moment rather than striving for a wealthy decrepitude.

[DanielX]

1890 is good all you need is some restrictions on monopolies and trusts to keep companies from hurting consumers.

Pretty much. Probably the closest to ideal economic system would be the US approximately 1910.

Are you, DanielX, a millionaire?

Not even close. I want to be one someday, though.

Well, good luck with that.  Though the odds are against you, it is possible.  One thing to consider though - you will probably be an old man by the time you attain that goal.  Life after about 60 or 65 isn't actually worth much.

I would recommend enjoying the moment rather than striving for a wealthy decrepitude.

I intend to do both. Careful budgeting, and a career in computers, will both go a long way. Also, I intend to do some investing (probably fairly conservative, mutual funds, some gold in case the dollar, euro, and yen all tank at once, maybe some bank bonds).

Plus, you don't know what 65 will be like when I'm 65 (that's still 47 years away for me). And i come from a fairly long-lived family (all grandparents lived into their 80s, and didn't really start to go down the tubes until the wrong side of 75). And even without considering that, i could still choose who gets my money - or maybe buy myself a fountain of youth .

Incidentally, there's living and there's living. I do intend to get married (which would mean more $$$), and possibly have children (which would mean a good deal less $$$ - each kid costs something like $200,000 to a family, on average).

[opebo]

I do intend to get married (which would mean more $$$), and possibly have children

Ugh, I wouldn't recommend those things.

(which would mean a good deal less $$$ - each kid costs something like $200,000 to a family, on average).

Is that including all the poor who'se kids subsist on bacon and Ding-Dongs and then never go to college?  Because that can't cost so very much. 

[David S]

Option 3.

[Democratic Hawk]

Socialism lite (US)

Dave