U.S. minimum wage hike would kill jobs but alleviate poverty: CBO

Comments (42)
OneOfTheSheep wrote:

Would someone please direct me to the part of the American Constitution or it’s amendments where it becomes the DUTY of society to “lift out of poverty” a family of four?

Why is it not, instead, the responsible presumption that both church and state instead encourage two people who choose to engage in sex, whether or not married, to take appropriate measures to avoid “creating” two more lives in the abstract expectation that God or society “will provide”? Of course, this is the perspective of those unreasonable people that perceive the present SEVEN BILLION HUMANS (plus) already on this earth as an EXCESS AND UNSUSTAINABLE BURDEN, and who do NOT see it as mankind’s “destiny” to cover every open space with human protoplasm.

At issue is the fundamental choice…what number, if any, is the “right” balance between quantity of life and quality of life.

Feb 18, 2014 3:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Rich_F wrote:

“lift out of poverty” is not all it sounds like. to lift people “out of poverty” requires forcing a business owner to pay a certain wage for labor. he has a few choices to either make less himself, raise prices for his goods/services or lay off workers. which option do you think they will choose? so we get less workers but those who are left are making more. this sounds very similar to the effect the redefinition of full time employee had via obamacare. job growth numbers look better but people are making less. let the market decide what a person is worth. oh and you can’t LIVE on minimum wage so let’s stop with tying this to a living wage.

Feb 18, 2014 4:28pm EST  --  Report as abuse
beyondtaboo wrote:

GOP are such dunces, so bereft of compassion and ideas. We could put EVERYONE to work. There is plenty to do. Less war and more work. Same budget.

Feb 18, 2014 4:53pm EST  --  Report as abuse
PaulBradley wrote:

If minimum wage will be raised to $10.10/hr, based on 40-hour week, equaling approximately $21,000/year minimum income – an increase of approximately 39.2% calculated from the existing minimum wage level of $7.25/hr – then, all Social Security and Disability recipients receiving lesser amount than the newly-created minimum total annual income represent, their benefits should be elevated to match the minimum wage income to prevent these recipients to have to live on a lesser income than the Federal minimum wage. Or, implement an increase of 39.2%, however, NOT to make it to increase given individual’s annual income above the level of the new-installed Federal minimum wage standard.

I just think it would be fair for all the people that worked all their lives to support the economy, albeit at low wages upon which their benefits were calculated. I am just thinking about all the retired or disabled people that have to live, lets say, on $500.00/month. And, there is quite a few of Americans receiving just about this kind of limited amount and are expected to live on it.

COLA adjustment for 2014, in terms of only 1.5%, is supposed to be enough? I think that the majority of people that do food-shopping, for example, know that the COLA does NOT reflect honestly the real cost of living.

Feb 18, 2014 4:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Jambo86 wrote:

So, if raising the minimum wage will reduce the number of jobs does it follow that lowering the minimum wage will create more jobs? If so, then maybe there should be no minimum wage. Just think of all the jobs that would be created. on top of that, if we then get rid of unemployment benefits, welfare, food stamps, etc. everyone would have to work for next to nothing or starve. Sure the country would then be full of homeless, malnourished, poverty stricken people but at least they would be free and unshackled by a nanny state.

Feb 18, 2014 4:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse
beyondtaboo wrote:

to take appropriate measures to avoid “creating” two more lives in the abstract expectation that God or society “will provide”?

1-Sheep, the GOP rallies the fundamentalists against anyone who approves of abortion, and even against anyone who supports realistic sex education and making available contraceptives. The GOP and the fundamentalists want to pretend that minors do not have sex. Look at the Gov race in Texas where voting starts today. The GOP propagandists are screaming against the Dem candidate because she supports women’s rights to choose. Check it out.

Feb 18, 2014 4:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Nomostew wrote:

It doesn’t take much looking to find studies showing no such effect in the past when we’ve raised minimum wages in times of high unemployment. My guess is the CBO is being overly cautious about the stimulus effect of giving the working poor, who will tend to spend what they have (on things like food and clothing) more money to spend.

Feb 18, 2014 4:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Let me guess the righties are not even going to acknowledge the details, pretty much like the whole ‘Obamacare is going to make us lose 2 million jobs’ thing.

Fro example the last paragraph of story reads ‘oting the difficulties in projecting the employment impact of a minimum wage increase, CBO said, “There is about a two-thirds chance that the effect would be in the range between a very slight reduction in employment and a reduction in employment of 1.0 million workers” under a $10.10 hourly wage.’

So in other words there is a 66% chance that it will be a VERY slight reduction.

I am also wondering if the CBO estimated the jobs created by the extra spending these families would then be doing?

Feb 18, 2014 5:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
PaulBradley wrote:

@Nomostew

The Most Rigorous Research Shows Minimum Wage Increases Do Not Reduce Employment – see: http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/job-loss

Feb 18, 2014 5:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
4sight2020 wrote:

when people have to pay $14 for a happy meal they’ll wonder why.

Feb 18, 2014 5:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse
billpr wrote:

Maybe if they didn’t eat that crap (happy meal), they wouldn’t be obese and unhealthy. Maybe healthcare costs would decline, there wouldn’t be as many needing a minimum wage increase and so on..Cause and effect, you guys who bitch all the time are always the first to blame everyone else.. I bet you are fat and love those “Whoppers”

Feb 18, 2014 6:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse
1DukeZ wrote:

U.S. minimum wage hike would kill jobs but alleviate poverty?

If I lost my job, would that make me a millionaire or put me in poverty?

Feb 18, 2014 6:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse
MatthewRyan wrote:

So half a million jobs and another two million equivalent in loss work because of the Affordable Care Act? Oh but this is from the right wing, tea party conservative Congressional Budget Office.

Feb 18, 2014 6:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
kevin2ia wrote:

The needs of the Democrats outweigh the needs of the many or the few.

Feb 18, 2014 7:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
dualcitizen wrote:

What is classified as “poverty” in this country is an absolute joke.Isn’t it amazing that liberals do not understand what they are incentivizing citizens to do. In his War on Poverty, LBJ got a bill passed that paid women with children only if no man was in the house. Guess what — they are not dumb! We saw the destruction of the family as many women kicked the men out and did without them in order to receive the incentive money!! Today Obama is incentivizing our citizens to work less through the Obamacare law that subsidizes healthcare and also affects businesses negatively if they have a specified number of workers who are lconsidered part time if they only work less than 30 hours per week. Guess what, if this continues we will have a further wrecked economy than we have now….

This is the real story about being poor in America. I do not care what your political party is but you will have to agree this is the real deal.

There is no material poverty in the U.S. Here are a few facts about people whom the Census Bureau labels as poor. Dr. Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield, in their study “Understanding Poverty in the United States: Surprising Facts About America’s Poor” (http://tinyurl.com/448flj8), report that 80 percent of poor households have air conditioning; nearly three-quarters have a car or truck, and 31 percent have two or more. Two-thirds have cable or satellite TV. Half have one or more computers. Forty-two percent own their homes. Poor Americans have more living space than the typical non-poor person in Sweden, France or the U.K. What we have in our nation are dependency and poverty of the spirit, with people making unwise choices and leading pathological lives aided and abetted by the welfare state.

The Census Bureau pegs the poverty rate among blacks at 35 percent and among whites at 13 percent. The illegitimacy rate among blacks is 72 percent, and among whites it’s 30 percent. A statistic that one doesn’t hear much about is that the poverty rate among black married families has been in the single digits for more than two decades, currently at 8 percent. For married white families, it’s 5 percent. Now the politically incorrect questions: Whose fault is it to have children without the benefit of marriage and risk a life of dependency? Do people have free will, or are they governed by instincts?

There may be some pinhead sociologists who blame the weak black family structure on racial discrimination. But why was the black illegitimacy rate only 14 percent in 1940, and why, as Dr. Thomas Sowell reports, do we find that census data “going back a hundred years, when blacks were just one generation out of slavery … showed that a slightly higher percentage of black adults had married than white adults. This fact remained true in every census from 1890 to 1940″? Is anyone willing to advance the argument that the reason the illegitimacy rate among blacks was lower and marriage rates higher in earlier periods was there was less racial discrimination and greater opportunity?

No one can blame a person if he starts out in life poor, because how one starts out is not his fault. If he stays poor, he is to blame because it is his fault. Avoiding long-term poverty is not rocket science. First, graduate from high school. Second, get married before you have children, and stay married. Third, work at any kind of job, even one that starts out paying the minimum wage. And finally, avoid engaging in criminal behavior. It turns out that a married couple, each earning the minimum wage, would earn an annual combined income of $30,000. The Census Bureau poverty line for a family of two is $15,500, and for a family of four, it’s $23,000. By the way, no adult who starts out earning the minimum wage does so for very long.

Since President Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty, the nation has spent about $18 trillion at the federal, state and local levels of government on programs justified by the “need” to deal with some aspect of poverty. In a column of mine in 1995, I pointed out that at that time, the nation had spent $5.4 trillion on the War on Poverty, and with that princely sum, “you could purchase every U.S. factory, all manufacturing equipment, and every office building. With what’s left over, one could buy every airline, trucking company and our commercial maritime fleet. If you’re still in the shopping mood, you could also buy every television, radio and power company, plus every retail and wholesale store in the entire nation” (http://tinyurl.com/kmhy6es). Today’s total of $18 trillion spent on poverty means you could purchase everything produced in our country each year and then some.

There’s very little guts in the political arena to address the basic causes of poverty. To do so risks being labeled as racist, sexist, uncaring and insensitive. That means today’s dependency is likely to become permanent.

Feb 18, 2014 7:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
CF137 wrote:

$10.10 minimum hourly wage would bring 900,000 people above the poverty threshold of $24,100 a year for a family of four.
==============

Really?…out of poverty? Suppose the bulk of those 900,000 people had drug problems, or gambling and debiting problems. They sure wouldn’t be lifted out of poverty then, would they.

Feb 18, 2014 7:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
dualcitizen wrote:

USAPragmatist2 wrote: “So in other words there is a 66% chance that it will be a VERY slight reduction.”
Not much on reading comprehension are you? Even after quoting the article in your post which says 66% chance it will be BETWEEN a slight reduction and 1 million.

Feb 18, 2014 7:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse
sabrefencer wrote:

isn’t this double talk…raise the minimum wage rate, yet again…people get fired to reduce costs…prices get raised, across the board a second time….first, to cover that horrible failed experiment, called Obama care.. second to cover yet another huge employee cost increase heaped upon businesses…Obama quit it…

Feb 18, 2014 7:43pm EST  --  Report as abuse
carnivalchaos wrote:

Seems to me if more people have more money to spend, then that will stimulate the economy and encourage job growth. The increase may very well cost some jobs, but there will also be an increase in economic activity which should translate into job growth. So in reality that 500,000 number will be much less. Factor in nearly a million people lifted out of poverty, I’d say it’s the way to go. We MUST start bringing up wages.

Feb 18, 2014 7:50pm EST  --  Report as abuse
carnivalchaos wrote:

sabrefencer: You might have an argument if American companies weren’t doing so well. American profits are up. So you’d better float another tact.

Feb 18, 2014 7:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Classic progressivism: as long as you can relieve suffering in the short term who cares about the long-term effects of a policy? Raising the minimum raise will “relieve poverty” for some in the short term, but it will _permanently_ kill jobs in the long-term and thus decrease the overall prosperity of the country. Oh, but who cares about the long-term? Spreading the misery evenly is much, much more important to a progressive than raising the prosperity of the overall society in the long term. Just ask any liberal; he’ll tell you.

Feb 18, 2014 7:53pm EST  --  Report as abuse
PaulBradley wrote:

@sabrefencer wrote:” . . . huge employee cost increase heaped upon businesses . . . ”

Where did you get that from? People that work for minimum pay are, for example, janitors, etc. Are you telling me that the few dollars extra per month is going to cause a corporation ‘unbearable’ cost?? This kind of costs are easily absorbed and is not even felt in a business’ profit margins. You are making a ‘horse out of a fly’ . . . !! I would say the minimum wage increase cost to a company would be less or equal to CEO’s ONE dinner in a New York restaurant.

BTW – The Most Rigorous Research Shows Minimum Wage Increases Do Not Reduce Employment – see: http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/job-loss

Feb 18, 2014 8:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
carnivalchaos wrote:

thinkThenSpeak: Permanently? No where in the CBO report does it say those jobs are permanently gone. Nor does it say a minimum wage increase will only have temporary benefits. You just make it up as you go along. I guess if the facts don’t make your argument strong enough, you have to make things up, eh?

Feb 18, 2014 8:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse

@dualcitizen, ignoring your rant about how there is no poverty in America, probably written from your glass house in the suburbs with no idea what others in the world face. A slight reduction is part of the range for a 66% chance.

@thinkthenspeak, maybe you ought to take your screen name to heart, there was nothing about lowering poverty only for the short term. There is ZERO reason why someone working 40 hours a week should live below the poverty level, I do not care if it a ditch digger, burger flipper or whatever. That is just one step removed from slavery.

Feb 18, 2014 8:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Dr_Steve wrote:

What I fail to understand is why a worker earning minimum wage of $7.25 would make that same worker more productive or lower absenteeism if that same worker was earning minimum wage of $10.10, all else remaining unchanged. It’s still minimum wage. Seems like more money chasing the same level of productivity.

Feb 18, 2014 8:20pm EST  --  Report as abuse
PaulBradley wrote:

@Dr_Steve

There is nothing that requires worker to earn minimum wage of $10.10/hour subject to proportionately increased productivity. We are a nation of one of the HIGHEST workers’ productivity. So, that issue is mute, as far as I am concerned.

Perhaps you should re-read @USAPragmatist2′s comment above yours – i.e. “There is ZERO reason why someone working 40 hours a week should live below the poverty level, I do not care if it a ditch digger, burger flipper or whatever. That is just one step removed from slavery.”

We should stop promoting GLOBALIZATION where only few benefit and thanks to which most Americans are losing their jobs. Enforce protectionist policies starting with imposing 20% import tariffs. THAT would be a great start for the U.S.A. to revert back to prosperous industrial nation, as it once was, where a worker was taking home decent paycheck allowing him/her having living standard worth working for, to begin with.

Feb 18, 2014 8:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse
4sight2020 wrote:

billpr: the price of soy smoothies will increase as well as well as the price of everything.

Feb 18, 2014 9:19pm EST  --  Report as abuse
OneOfTheSheep wrote:

@dualcitizen,

Very, very well said! Absolutely true and rarely perceived.

Feb 18, 2014 9:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
carnivalchaos wrote:

A clear picture has emerged regarding America’s conservatives and their attitude toward their fellow Americans who make up the poor and Middle Classes. They want them to suffer. Even though the money is available and our rich continue to increase their wealth, America’s conservatives support a healthcare system that is unaffordable to millions, forcing millions of Americans to either go without or spend themselves into bankruptcy trying to afford it. In addition, they want to keep wages down, regardless of the consequences. Even the environment is expendable. They want the poor and the Middle Class to sacrifice everything just so that the wealthy can maximize their wealth. That seems to be all that matters to them. We’re the only developed country in the world with this problem. Let me repeat that. We’re the only developed country in the world with this particular problem. Every other developed nation shows more caring and concern for their fellow countrymen. And more wisdom. Fortunately, time is on the side of the many. This has happened in various manifestations throughout history and it has never lasted. The people will have their day.

Feb 18, 2014 10:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
carnivalchaos wrote:

Simply explained, you can’t keep advocating for every policy that hurts the poor and Middle Class and which benefits the endless maximization of earnings of the very wealthy, and argue with any credibility that you care about what happens to those Americans who are not multimillionaires. Mitt Romney was your man, a guy who insults half of America, calling us moochers, when he, himself, was born a millionaire and has benefited more from the federal government than most Americans. This is not what our Founding Fathers envisioned for us. In fact, they warned us about this very thing happening. The people are beginning to wake up.

Feb 18, 2014 10:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
pjdxxxwa wrote:

GREAT PRONOSTICATION in AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE HISTORY

You can’t free the slaves or America will collapse
You can’t allow Unionization or industry will collapse
You can’t grant equal rights to women or society will collapse
You can’tcollect federal income tax or the ecomony will collapse
You can’t restrict child labor or industry will collapse
You can’t enact social security or the economy will collapse
You can’t end segregation or society will collapse
You can’t allow woman in the workplace or society will collapse
You can’t grant equal rights to minorities or societywill collapse
You can’t allow medicare or the economy will collapse
You can’t regulate pollution or industry will collapse
You can’t raise the debt ceiling or the economy will collapse
You can’t allow interratial marriage or society will collapse
You can’t allow national health care, society will collapse
the newest one:
You can’t raise the minimum wage the economy will collapse

YET AMERICA STANDS

Feb 19, 2014 12:50am EST  --  Report as abuse
ridiculousGOP wrote:

Why does the speaker of the house have a spokesman?

Feb 20, 2014 10:50pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JIMFITZSR wrote:

I MUST BE MISSING SOMETHING!
IF OUR GOAL IS TO REDUCE THE COST OF GOVT ASSISTANCE, MEDICAID, HOUSING, ETC. WHAT IS WRONG WITH PAYING A LIVING WAGE ($10.10?)?
WE ARE PAYING FOR A LOW MINIMUM WAGE TODAY BY PROVIDING GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE TO LOW INCOME WORKERS AND COMPLAINING ABOUT THE COST TO THE GOVERNMENT!
I HEARD TODAY THAT A BIG BOX WALMART STORES EMPLOYEES RECEIVE THE EQUIVELENT OF $1,000,000 PER STORE IN GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE! I DOUBT THAT NUMBER. BUT WHAT IS THE ACTUAL COST OF LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL COSTS TO SUBSIDIZE A WALLMART EMPLOYEE? IT IS A SECRET!!!!

Feb 22, 2014 7:44am EST  --  Report as abuse
JIMFITZSR wrote:

I MUST BE MISSING SOMETHING!
IF OUR GOAL IS TO REDUCE THE COST OF GOVT ASSISTANCE, MEDICAID, HOUSING, ETC. WHAT IS WRONG WITH PAYING A LIVING WAGE ($10.10?)?
WE ARE PAYING FOR A LOW MINIMUM WAGE TODAY BY PROVIDING GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE TO LOW INCOME WORKERS AND COMPLAINING ABOUT THE COST TO THE GOVERNMENT!
I HEARD TODAY THAT A BIG BOX WALMART STORES EMPLOYEES RECEIVE THE EQUIVELENT OF $1,000,000 PER STORE IN GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE! I DOUBT THAT NUMBER. BUT WHAT IS THE ACTUAL COST OF LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL COSTS TO SUBSIDIZE A WALLMART EMPLOYEE? IT IS A SECRET!!!!

Feb 22, 2014 7:44am EST  --  Report as abuse
JIMFITZSR wrote:

I MUST BE MISSING SOMETHING!
IF OUR GOAL IS TO REDUCE THE COST OF GOVT ASSISTANCE, MEDICAID, HOUSING, ETC. WHAT IS WRONG WITH PAYING A LIVING WAGE ($10.10?)?
WE ARE PAYING FOR A LOW MINIMUM WAGE TODAY BY PROVIDING GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE TO LOW INCOME WORKERS AND COMPLAINING ABOUT THE COST TO THE GOVERNMENT!
I HEARD TODAY THAT A BIG BOX WALMART STORES EMPLOYEES RECEIVE THE EQUIVELENT OF $1,000,000 PER STORE IN GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE! I DOUBT THAT NUMBER. BUT WHAT IS THE ACTUAL COST OF LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL COSTS TO SUBSIDIZE A WALLMART EMPLOYEE? IT IS A SECRET!!!!

Feb 22, 2014 7:44am EST  --  Report as abuse
JIMFITZSR wrote:

I MUST BE MISSING SOMETHING!
IF OUR GOAL IS TO REDUCE THE COST OF GOVT ASSISTANCE, MEDICAID, HOUSING, ETC. WHAT IS WRONG WITH PAYING A LIVING WAGE ($10.10?)?
WE ARE PAYING FOR A LOW MINIMUM WAGE TODAY BY PROVIDING GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE TO LOW INCOME WORKERS AND COMPLAINING ABOUT THE COST TO THE GOVERNMENT!
I HEARD TODAY THAT A BIG BOX WALMART STORES EMPLOYEES RECEIVE THE EQUIVELENT OF $1,000,000 PER STORE IN GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE! I DOUBT THAT NUMBER. BUT WHAT IS THE ACTUAL COST OF LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL COSTS TO SUBSIDIZE A WALLMART EMPLOYEE? IT IS A SECRET!!!!

Feb 22, 2014 7:44am EST  --  Report as abuse
JIMFITZSR wrote:

I MUST BE MISSING SOMETHING!
IF OUR GOAL IS TO REDUCE THE COST OF GOVT ASSISTANCE, MEDICAID, HOUSING, ETC. WHAT IS WRONG WITH PAYING A LIVING WAGE ($10.10?)?
WE ARE PAYING FOR A LOW MINIMUM WAGE TODAY BY PROVIDING GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE TO LOW INCOME WORKERS AND COMPLAINING ABOUT THE COST TO THE GOVERNMENT!
I HEARD TODAY THAT A BIG BOX WALMART STORES EMPLOYEES RECEIVE THE EQUIVELENT OF $1,000,000 PER STORE IN GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE! I DOUBT THAT NUMBER. BUT WHAT IS THE ACTUAL COST OF LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL COSTS TO SUBSIDIZE A WALLMART EMPLOYEE? IT IS A SECRET!!!!

Feb 22, 2014 7:44am EST  --  Report as abuse
JIMFITZSR wrote:

I MUST BE MISSING SOMETHING!
IF OUR GOAL IS TO REDUCE THE COST OF GOVT ASSISTANCE, MEDICAID, HOUSING, ETC. WHAT IS WRONG WITH PAYING A LIVING WAGE ($10.10?)?
WE ARE PAYING FOR A LOW MINIMUM WAGE TODAY BY PROVIDING GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE TO LOW INCOME WORKERS AND COMPLAINING ABOUT THE COST TO THE GOVERNMENT!
I HEARD TODAY THAT A BIG BOX WALMART STORES EMPLOYEES RECEIVE THE EQUIVELENT OF $1,000,000 PER STORE IN GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE! I DOUBT THAT NUMBER. BUT WHAT IS THE ACTUAL COST OF LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL COSTS TO SUBSIDIZE A WALLMART EMPLOYEE? IT IS A SECRET!!!!

Feb 22, 2014 7:44am EST  --  Report as abuse
JIMFITZSR wrote:

I MUST BE MISSING SOMETHING!
IF OUR GOAL IS TO REDUCE THE COST OF GOVT ASSISTANCE, MEDICAID, HOUSING, ETC. WHAT IS WRONG WITH PAYING A LIVING WAGE ($10.10?)?
WE ARE PAYING FOR A LOW MINIMUM WAGE TODAY BY PROVIDING GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE TO LOW INCOME WORKERS AND COMPLAINING ABOUT THE COST TO THE GOVERNMENT!
I HEARD TODAY THAT A BIG BOX WALMART STORES EMPLOYEES RECEIVE THE EQUIVELENT OF $1,000,000 PER STORE IN GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE! I DOUBT THAT NUMBER. BUT WHAT IS THE ACTUAL COST OF LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL COSTS TO SUBSIDIZE A WALLMART EMPLOYEE? IT IS A SECRET!!!!

Feb 22, 2014 7:44am EST  --  Report as abuse
JIMFITZSR wrote:

I MUST BE MISSING SOMETHING!
IF OUR GOAL IS TO REDUCE THE COST OF GOVT ASSISTANCE, MEDICAID, HOUSING, ETC. WHAT IS WRONG WITH PAYING A LIVING WAGE ($10.10?)?
WE ARE PAYING FOR A LOW MINIMUM WAGE TODAY BY PROVIDING GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE TO LOW INCOME WORKERS AND COMPLAINING ABOUT THE COST TO THE GOVERNMENT!
I HEARD TODAY THAT A BIG BOX WALMART STORES EMPLOYEES RECEIVE THE EQUIVELENT OF $1,000,000 PER STORE IN GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE! I DOUBT THAT NUMBER. BUT WHAT IS THE ACTUAL COST OF LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL COSTS TO SUBSIDIZE A WALLMART EMPLOYEE? IT IS A SECRET!!!!

Feb 22, 2014 7:44am EST  --  Report as abuse
JIMFITZSR wrote:

I MUST BE MISSING SOMETHING!
IF OUR GOAL IS TO REDUCE THE COST OF GOVT ASSISTANCE, MEDICAID, HOUSING, ETC. WHAT IS WRONG WITH PAYING A LIVING WAGE ($10.10?)?
WE ARE PAYING FOR A LOW MINIMUM WAGE TODAY BY PROVIDING GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE TO LOW INCOME WORKERS AND COMPLAINING ABOUT THE COST TO THE GOVERNMENT!
I HEARD TODAY THAT A BIG BOX WALMART STORES EMPLOYEES RECEIVE THE EQUIVELENT OF $1,000,000 PER STORE IN GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE! I DOUBT THAT NUMBER. BUT WHAT IS THE ACTUAL COST OF LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL COSTS TO SUBSIDIZE A WALLMART EMPLOYEE? IT IS A SECRET!!!!

Feb 22, 2014 7:44am EST  --  Report as abuse
JIMFITZSR wrote:

I MUST BE MISSING SOMETHING!
IF OUR GOAL IS TO REDUCE THE COST OF GOVT ASSISTANCE, MEDICAID, HOUSING, ETC. WHAT IS WRONG WITH PAYING A LIVING WAGE ($10.10?)?
WE ARE PAYING FOR A LOW MINIMUM WAGE TODAY BY PROVIDING GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE TO LOW INCOME WORKERS AND COMPLAINING ABOUT THE COST TO THE GOVERNMENT!
I HEARD TODAY THAT A BIG BOX WALMART STORES EMPLOYEES RECEIVE THE EQUIVELENT OF $1,000,000 PER STORE IN GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE! I DOUBT THAT NUMBER. BUT WHAT IS THE ACTUAL COST OF LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL COSTS TO SUBSIDIZE A WALLMART EMPLOYEE? IT IS A SECRET!!!!

Feb 22, 2014 7:44am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.