Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

[FreshFish]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

I'd prefer the current system lest people start working for slave wages. Think of the federal minimum wage as a way to keep people off the govt dole. Once that's established states can then go their own way above that if they choose to. Some people worship China's society. I don't. I don't see a reason to emulate their compensation for their workers.

Sorry, but this is just [adjective]. By this reasoning everyone would be working for the minimum wage, and obviously many people are paid much more than that.

You want to earn more than the minimum wage, find a way to make what you do valuable to other people.

There are exceptions to minimum wage laws IIRC, waiters / waitresses who receive tip income, children under 18.

There's an abundance of evidence that, when controlled for other factors, an increase in the minimum wage tends to reduce employment for low-skilled workers who produce value only at (or below) that wage level.

Of course, when has evidence ever affected your thinking?


For people who are lucky enough to get / retain jobs, then of course those lucky ones are undeniably better off.

it seems to me that the key question would be the gap between minimum wage / employment compared to the "wage" you are paid sitting around doing nothing. there is ample evidence that extended unemployment benefits contribute to higher unemployment, because people turn down jobs that they are qualified to hold merely because accepting it would require them to accept less pay than they were receiving before they were laid off.

Fundamentally we will talk about "entitlement" and whether every college graduate should have a higher minimum wage than any high school graduate merely because of the difference in education.


EDIT: many people think they are "entitled" to keep receiving the same rate of pay even when the marketplace changes. if I used to be the best typewriter repairmen ever, and suddenly no one wants to use typewriters any more, am I "entitled" to keep getting paid what I used to get? or "must" I learn a new skill and go out into the labor market and get paid what that new skill is worth instead? That is the crux of the argument for both sides: one side says, "it only makes sense that you get paid what you are 'worth' in terms of productivity" the other side says "I 'deserve' to get paid a minimum amount, whether I actually am 'worth it' or not."

 

[Rover]

What basis are you using that 8.75 is able to be absorbed without repercussions, without using "the libertarians didn't say it" as your answer? Please use some financial backing.

I didn't say it would be absorbed without any repercussions, therefore I see no need to present evidence to defend a position I didn't take. That would be odd, no?

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

Sorry, but this is just [adjective]. By this reasoning everyone would be working for the minimum wage, and obviously many people are paid much more than that.

You want to earn more than the minimum wage, find a way to make what you do valuable to other people.

There are exceptions to minimum wage laws IIRC, waiters / waitresses who receive tip income, children under 18.

There's an abundance of evidence that, when controlled for other factors, an increase in the minimum wage tends to reduce employment for low-skilled workers who produce value only at (or below) that wage level.

Of course, when has evidence ever affected your thinking?


For people who are lucky enough to get / retain jobs, then of course those lucky ones are undeniably better off.

it seems to me that the key question would be the gap between minimum wage / employment compared to the "wage" you are paid sitting around doing nothing. there is ample evidence that extended unemployment benefits contribute to higher unemployment, because people turn down jobs that they are qualified to hold merely because accepting it would require them to accept less pay than they were receiving before they were laid off.

Fundamentally we will talk about "entitlement" and whether every college graduate should have a higher minimum wage than any high school graduate merely because of the difference in education.

Oh come now, Fishy, the only definition of "execution" that lefties know involves ol' sparky.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

I didn't say it would be absorbed without any repercussions, therefore I see no need to present evidence to defend a position I didn't take. That would be odd, no?

Fair enough, I'll clarify: The comment was with regards to being, as you had stated, in an "already wealthy state" and "being able to absord it" [sic]. We're also talking about, as the original article had proposed, a net increase in jobs. I'm glad to see that we both are willing to account for variable change, so how would the increase not have a negative impact upon the parties concerned, at least enough of a non-negative impact to create this increase?

Also, for the record, you can live off 8.75 an hour in NYS. Heck, you can live off 7.25 an hour. We did it for years. Granted, this is living in the upstate (my definition) counties, and you could probably also pull it off in some of the central and western counties, at least the rural ones. Why is it then not a municipal or county decision? Why are, once again, eight counties of NYS strangling the other 54?

 

[Rover]

Fair enough, I'll clarify: The comment was with regards to being, as you had stated, in an "already wealthy state" and "being able to absord it" [sic]. We're also talking about, as the original article had proposed, a net increase in jobs. I'm glad to see that we both are willing to account for variable change, so how would the increase not have a negative impact upon the parties concerned, at least enough of a non-negative impact to create this increase?

Also, for the record, you can live off 8.75 an hour in NYS. Heck, you can live off 7.25 an hour. We did it for years. Granted, this is living in the upstate (my definition) counties, and you could probably also pull it off in some of the central and western counties, at least the rural ones. Why is it then not a municipal or county decision? Why are, once again, eight counties of NYS strangling the other 54?

In terms of a net positive benefit (more money paid to workers minus some costs being passed along) I'll say again think of it as getting McDonalds to spend more money in your state. Somebody's gotta pay the workers. That's the corporation (ignoring franchising for a minute). I doubt these places are too overstaffed given how long it takes at the drive thru to get your food. While they could conceivably charge more for a burger, there's a limit as to how much people are willing to pay for junk food, so there's some restrictions there. If in fact these people are being paid more money, they're spending it locally most likely hence the increase in jobs.

To your second statement, correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the NYC area essentually pay the taxes for the rest of the state - as in they are the biggest net contributors?

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

It was announced today that the economy shrank an annualized 0.1% for Q4. If Q1 does the same thing we are officially entering the double-dip.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

In terms of a net positive benefit (more money paid to workers minus some costs being passed along) I'll say again think of it as getting McDonalds to spend more money in your state. Somebody's gotta pay the workers. That's the corporation (ignoring franchising for a minute). I doubt these places are too overstaffed given how long it takes at the drive thru to get your food. While they could conceivably charge more for a burger, there's a limit as to how much people are willing to pay for junk food, so there's some restrictions there. If in fact these people are being paid more money, they're spending it locally most likely hence the increase in jobs.

To your second statement, correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the NYC area essentually pay the taxes for the rest of the state - as in they are the biggest net contributors?

You're forgetting one big thing, though: You're only accounting for the price increase at one location. Most of everyone else who is in the same situation would also go up. I'd be tempted to call it inflation, although you aren't putting anything extra into the money supply, so what you're really doing is changing the value of the goods, not inflating the money supply. Granted, there's also accounting for those businesses who are already above that threshold (such as ALDI) who could see an increase in business because they are not affected by the increase due to their business model, but that does not directly result in an increase in demand for staffing.

As for the second part, property taxes are the big burden, and the lower 8 counties don't pay extra, mostly due to quantity of land. Obviously I can understand assessments and what-not, but the point's still as such.

 

[Rover]

Sorry, but this is just [adjective]. By this reasoning everyone would be working for the minimum wage, and obviously many people are paid much more than that.

You want to earn more than the minimum wage, find a way to make what you do valuable to other people.

There are exceptions to minimum wage laws IIRC, waiters / waitresses who receive tip income, children under 18.

There's an abundance of evidence that, when controlled for other factors, an increase in the minimum wage tends to reduce employment for low-skilled workers who produce value only at (or below) that wage level.

Of course, when has evidence ever affected your thinking?


For people who are lucky enough to get / retain jobs, then of course those lucky ones are undeniably better off.

it seems to me that the key question would be the gap between minimum wage / employment compared to the "wage" you are paid sitting around doing nothing. there is ample evidence that extended unemployment benefits contribute to higher unemployment, because people turn down jobs that they are qualified to hold merely because accepting it would require them to accept less pay than they were receiving before they were laid off.

Fundamentally we will talk about "entitlement" and whether every college graduate should have a higher minimum wage than any high school graduate merely because of the difference in education.


EDIT: many people think they are "entitled" to keep receiving the same rate of pay even when the marketplace changes. if I used to be the best typewriter repairmen ever, and suddenly no one wants to use typewriters any more, am I "entitled" to keep getting paid what I used to get? or "must" I learn a new skill and go out into the labor market and get paid what that new skill is worth instead? That is the crux of the argument for both sides: one side says, "it only makes sense that you get paid what you are 'worth' in terms of productivity" the other side says "I 'deserve' to get paid a minimum amount, whether I actually am 'worth it' or not."

Fishy you've lapsed into some idiocy about being entitled that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Then you stick with the 47% argument that your ilk can't seem to let go of even though it most likely cost your candidate the election (and spare me the part about how you didn't vote for Mittens).

Here's a newsflash for you and your incredibly elitist attitude. There are plenty of people in this country who'd prefer to have a job then collect unemployment even if its the same or less money. Having a job gives you the opportunity to make more money and set a good example. Unemployment is a finite benefit. All that attitude represents is right wingers pleasuring themselves to the thought that they're all working class heros while people who fall into poverty deserve it.

So, the bottom line of a minimum wage is that some people aren't ever going to be able to rise about the low end of the pay scale, and because of that (lack of intelligence, physical/mental issues, etc) they don't all deserve to starve. Also some people start off low (students) and will work their way up. All of this benefits the rest of us because society wouldn't allow them to starve, so we the taxpayer would be paying for them. What amazes me about libertarian/conservatives is how they look down on people toiling away like this as some sort of scum, even though in many cases they're doing more actual work than the trust fund babies parking their money overseas.

 

[Rover]

You're forgetting one big thing, though: You're only accounting for the price increase at one location. Most of everyone else who is in the same situation would also go up. I'd be tempted to call it inflation, although you aren't putting anything extra into the money supply, so what you're really doing is changing the value of the goods, not inflating the money supply. Granted, there's also accounting for those businesses who are already above that threshold (such as ALDI) who could see an increase in business because they are not affected by the increase due to their business model, but that does not directly result in an increase in demand for staffing.

As for the second part, property taxes are the big burden, and the lower 8 counties don't pay extra, mostly due to quantity of land. Obviously I can understand assessments and what-not, but the point's still as such.

It is inflation. Minimum wage is static, even though inflation affects most other things (gas, food, etc). Think of this as applying inflation that affects everything else to wages also, otherwise these people would be taking a pay cut every year.

 

[Craig P.]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

In terms of a net positive benefit (more money paid to workers minus some costs being passed along) I'll say again think of it as getting McDonalds to spend more money in your state. Somebody's gotta pay the workers. That's the corporation (ignoring franchising for a minute). I doubt these places are too overstaffed given how long it takes at the drive thru to get your food. While they could conceivably charge more for a burger, there's a limit as to how much people are willing to pay for junk food, so there's some restrictions there.

Of course, this very bit means that the minimum wage has to be used with caution. As you say, there's a limit to how much people are willing to pay for junk food, and McDonald's is, in theory, not overstaffed. If a raised minimum wage makes it so that they can't make money (labor and other overhead exceeds revenue, raising prices doesn't change revenue) then the effect of raising the minimum wage is to put all of the McDonald's people out of work, not to increase their pay.

(I say all of that as someone who is generally in favor of the minimum wage. I'm in favor without being blind to its potential pitfalls.)

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

It is inflation. Minimum wage is static, even though inflation affects most other things (gas, food, etc). Think of this as applying inflation that affects everything else to wages also, otherwise these people would be taking a pay cut every year.

When you consider real wages and CPI levels, people ARE taking a pay cut every year. How about this for screwing people as well: the standard deduction in NYS hasn't changed since 1986. And how much can you get with $7500 today compared to back then? ($7500 is the single person's income tax standard deduction in NYS).

The biggest thing, though, is that as much as mommy and daddy government can tug on the covers, in the end, it's up to the citizen to wake up and create the better standard of living for him or herself. Apathy is what is truly killing this nation, and the government is taking full advantage of that to remove freedoms.

 

[Rover]

When you consider real wages and CPI levels, people ARE taking a pay cut every year. How about this for screwing people as well: the standard deduction in NYS hasn't changed since 1986. And how much can you get with $7500 today compared to back then? ($7500 is the single person's income tax standard deduction in NYS).

The biggest thing, though, is that as much as mommy and daddy government can tug on the covers, in the end, it's up to the citizen to wake up and create the better standard of living for him or herself. Apathy is what is truly killing this nation, and the government is taking full advantage of that to remove freedoms.

I'm in complete agreement that people should always strive to reach the full extent of their abilities. My problem is a somewhat country club attitude seems to be working its way into this discussion sometimes. By this I mean the notion that everybody can go to night school, get a doctorate degree and make a million bucks and if they don't do that they deserve to be poor. When I was in high school, I had a friend who was a great guy but dumb as a stump. He wasn't going to go to college or anything like that but he did work for a living after we got out. People like that who are staring at a lifetime of low wage, ball busting work are the working class heros who deserve our support, not those born with the intelligence to become a cardiac specialist.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

I'm in complete agreement that people should always strive to reach the full extent of their abilities. My problem is a somewhat country club attitude seems to be working its way into this discussion sometimes. By this I mean the notion that everybody can go to night school, get a doctorate degree and make a million bucks and if they don't do that they deserve to be poor. When I was in high school, I had a friend who was a great guy but dumb as a stump. He wasn't going to go to college or anything like that but he did work for a living after we got out. People like that who are staring at a lifetime of low wage, ball busting work are the working class heros who deserve our support, not those born with the intelligence to become a cardiac specialist.

Oh, there you go bringing class into it again!

Given government subsidies and the like, pretty much anyone CAN go get a doctorate degree. However, one thing that is even more annoying than the country club exclusivity clauses are the forced "inclusivity" (I know I'm making this word up; it's the antonym of exclusivity) where if someone isn't making a million bucks, we either have to push them up to where they're making a million bucks, or even worse, push everyone else down so they are making as much as "the poor guy" (trickle up poverty or trickle down tyranny). When I was in the rural area, we were happy just the way we were, and we didn't need any over-and-above government subsidies to make us happier. It's just like a college hockey team, where you don't just pick up all of the superstars, you become successful by getting those gritty players that can fish pucks out of corners, or defensive players that can hold the blue line and no one touches them. Sure, everyone has dreams and aspirations to be the next Bill Gates, Wayne Gretzky, or Carly Fiorina, but if the opportunity doesn't arise, one's hard work and determination at whatever they do will make them happy just the way they are.

 

[joecct]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

I'm in complete agreement that people should always strive to reach the full extent of their abilities. My problem is a somewhat country club attitude seems to be working its way into this discussion sometimes. By this I mean the notion that everybody can go to night school, get a doctorate degree and make a million bucks and if they don't do that they deserve to be poor. When I was in high school, I had a friend who was a great guy but dumb as a stump. He wasn't going to go to college or anything like that but he did work for a living after we got out. People like that who are staring at a lifetime of low wage, ball busting work are the working class heros who deserve our support, not those born with the intelligence to become a cardiac specialist.

Rover

Its not that he had the problem dumped on his door, which he did. But, like FDR, did he make it worse? That's a nice debate to have. Too bad Bill Buckley has gone on to debating other things.

 

[Rover]

Oh, there you go bringing class into it again!

Given government subsidies and the like, pretty much anyone CAN go get a doctorate degree. However, one thing that is even more annoying than the country club exclusivity clauses are the forced "inclusivity" (I know I'm making this word up; it's the antonym of exclusivity) where if someone isn't making a million bucks, we either have to push them up to where they're making a million bucks, or even worse, push everyone else down so they are making as much as "the poor guy" (trickle up poverty or trickle down tyranny). When I was in the rural area, we were happy just the way we were, and we didn't need any over-and-above government subsidies to make us happier. It's just like a college hockey team, where you don't just pick up all of the superstars, you become successful by getting those gritty players that can fish pucks out of corners, or defensive players that can hold the blue line and no one touches them. Sure, everyone has dreams and aspirations to be the next Bill Gates, Wayne Gretzky, or Carly Fiorina, but if the opportunity doesn't arise, one's hard work and determination at whatever they do will make them happy just the way they are.

I don't see this as official govt policy. There's always going to be haves and have nots. A guy like Mitt Romney would have been successful had be been born poor. George W Bush would have been working at the car wash his entire life were he not born into that family. The strength of this country is to get the people from Bill Gates to you and me to be able to reach their full potential, generally through education even if they weren't born wealthy or with the proper connections. Start having a country where only 20% of the people even have a chance to succeed and you'll see real problems.

My philosophy is simple. Govt has to help the people who want to help themselves. Not to make them millionaires, but to know the entity their taxes are going to is on their side.

joecct,

Excellent question and one by which all Presidents should be measured by. Not sure if its clear from my comments but Obama isn't as good of a President as Clinton. Mostly because he's a bit too incremental in his approach to things. Having said that we'll have to give him the full 8 years to assess him vs his other 2 term predecessors in recent memory (Reagan, Clinton, Bush II).

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

I don't see this as official govt policy. There's always going to be haves and have nots. A guy like Mitt Romney would have been successful had be been born poor. George W Bush would have been working at the car wash his entire life were he not born into that family. The strength of this country is to get the people from Bill Gates to you and me to be able to reach their full potential, generally through education even if they weren't born wealthy or with the proper connections. Start having a country where only 20% of the people even have a chance to succeed and you'll see real problems.

My philosophy is simple. Govt has to help the people who want to help themselves. Not to make them millionaires, but to know the entity their taxes are going to is on their side.

Once again, though, it all comes down to execution. One thing to remember, though, is that education is not the be-all-end-all way to prosperity. After all, how many history majors do we have flipping burgers or having numbers higher than 0.00 associated with their food stamp card? You've already heard my spiel about a subsidy in education for certain majors that are beneficial to society, so I'm not going to go over that again. One thing that college really doesn't teach all that much, depending on where you go, is how to apply the concepts taught, and this is why many private sector companies are reluctant to hire entry level. This is probably one of the reasons why a place like RIT is requiring a co-op prior to graduation for certain majors. Plus, you don't need an education to knock on doors and try to sell something, whether it's a product, your labour services, or something else. So many people fail because they either don't have a game plan, or they can't sell it.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

There are plenty of people in this country who'd prefer to have a job then collect unemployment even if its the same or less money.

Where is your evidence to support this statement?

Rover: "I don't need no friggin' evidence, I'm so smart I just figured it out! Don't annoy me with your prattle about 'evidence' or I'll start calling you names and make fun of you."

me: "ah, I see. Do you have any idea how unemployment insurance actually works? Have you or a family member actually ever collected?"

Rover: "what difference does that make? Who cares about data when I know I'm right. I can just make stuff up if it seems sensible to me. You should be grateful that I'm sharing my wisdom with you!"


You did not at all represent what I actually said; you ignored what I said and replaced it with typical lamestream talking points that have no connection with what actually happens in real life.

There are many people who would prefer to have a job as long as it met certain standards; it is not at all clear that these same people would accept any job that provided them with the same income that unemployment benefits do.

["hmm. load trucks all day for $500 per week or collect $475 per week from unemployment, what to do, what to do?"]


There is abundant empirical evidence that people who once worked in a shrinking industry (investment banking is really contracting big-time, for example) won't start to work until after unemployment benefits stop. You seem to think that keeping investment bankers on unemployment indefinitely would be a good thing, yet provide not a single bit of discussion as to why that should be so.


you also continue to misconstrue what I say, probably because deep down you know I am right: the best safety net is a social safety net run outside of government. That firebrand radical, Richard M. Daley, the former mayor of Chicago, probably said it best: "you hafta be really careful whenever you try to offer people temporary help from a government agency because pretty soon dey turn dat into a 'right' and den you never can stop da program and it blows your budget all to hell."


I say that the government "safety" net programs generally have been counter-productive, and empirically seem to have worsened the very conditions they were supposed to ameliorate. I've never claimed a causal relationship, I merely notice the correlations. You cannot look at the evidence and deny that those correlations exist.

It's really easy for you to salve your guilty conscience by forcing other people to do what you want them to do, especially as you are so much smarter than eveyone else. I prefer to allow people to make their own decisions and their own choices, because we've noticed that individual people demonstrate remarkable creativity and ingenuity when they collaborate. Many times the result is something no one individual ever would have discovered working solely on their own. I prefer to direct this ingenuity and creativity into solving real-life problems.

The first and most important priority of government programs is to provide continued employment to members of government unions and to provide campaign dollars to career politicians. Whether any people are actually helped or not doesn't really matter to them.

That's basic economics. It's not my fault that the world works that way. You can try to deny it all you want, which is probably why your replies have so much bluster and so little substantive content.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

Where is your evidence to support this statement?

Rover: "I don't need no friggin' evidence, I'm so smart I just figured it out! Don't annoy me with your prattle about 'evidence' or I'll start calling you names and make fun of you."

me: "ah, I see. Do you have any idea how unemployment insurance actually works? Have you or a family member actually ever collected?"

Rover: "what difference does that make? Who cares about data when I know I'm right. I can just make stuff up if it seems sensible to me. You should be grateful that I'm sharing my wisdom with you!"


You did not at all represent what I actually said; you ignored what I said and replaced it with typical lamestream talking points that have no connection with what actually happens in real life.

There are many people who would prefer to have a job as long as it met certain standards; it is not at all clear that these same people would accept any job that provided them with the same income that unemployment benefits do.

["hmm. load trucks all day for $500 per week or collect $475 per week from unemployment, what to do, what to do?"]


There is abundant empirical evidence that people who once worked in a shrinking industry (investment banking is really contracting big-time, for example) won't start to work until after unemployment benefits stop. You seem to think that keeping investment bankers on unemployment indefinitely would be a good thing, yet provide not a single bit of discussion as to why that should be so.


you also continue to misconstrue what I say, probably because deep down you know I am right: the best safety net is a social safety net run outside of government. That firebrand radical, Richard M. Daley, the former mayor of Chicago, probably said it best: "you hafta be really careful whenever you try to offer people temporary help from a government agency because pretty soon dey turn dat into a 'right' and den you never can stop da program and it blows your budget all to hell."


I say that the government "safety" net programs generally have been counter-productive, and empirically seem to have worsened the very conditions they were supposed to ameliorate. I've never claimed a causal relationship, I merely notice the correlations. You cannot look at the evidence and deny that those correlations exist.

It's really easy for you to salve your guilty conscience by forcing other people to do what you want them to do, especially as you are so much smarter than eveyone else. I prefer to allow people to make their own decisions and their own choices, because we've noticed that individual people demonstrate remarkable creativity and ingenuity when they collaborate. Many times the result is something no one individual ever would have discovered working solely on their own. I prefer to direct this ingenuity and creativity into solving real-life problems.

The first and most important priority of government programs is to provide continued employment to members of government unions and to provide campaign dollars to career politicians. Whether any people are actually helped or not doesn't really matter to them.

That's basic economics. It's not my fault that the world works that way. You can try to deny it all you want, which is probably why your replies have so much bluster and so little substantive content.

Knuckledragger!

I know that if I were to get laid off, I'd collect unemployment until it ran out. I may have morals and ethics, but I'm also not stupid enough to pass up something free.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

I'm in complete agreement that people should always strive to reach the full extent of their abilities. My problem is [that, in my imagination,] a somewhat country club attitude seems to be working its way into this discussion sometimes [even though no one else actually says anything of the sort]. By this I mean the notion that everybody can go to night school, get a doctorate degree and make a million bucks and if they don't do that they deserve to be poor [note: no one has said anything like this, at all]. When I was in high school, I had a friend who was a great guy but dumb as a stump. He wasn't going to go to college or anything like that but he did work for a living after we got out. People like that who are staring at a lifetime of low wage, ball busting work are the working class heros who deserve our support, not those born with the intelligence to become a cardiac specialist.

This is again where the media and envy have worsened an already-bad situation. Many people (certainly not all) feel entitled to a basic standard of living that includes plenty of luxury and convenience items. Our problem is that once well-off people have something, a lot (again not all) of people think that they "should" have it too. "Basic" living standards include stuff that we all had to do without when we were poor. No air conditioning? we'd go to the mall or buy a ticket at the second-run movie theater (whatever happened to those, by the way??) and spend all day there. Now even supposedly "poor" people expect air conditioning.

I'm going to make an analogy: I'm all for people getting enough to eat. However, I don't think everyone is "entitled" to gourmet dining.

You seem to conflate the two. If everyone isn't provided gourmet dining then we are trying to screw the poor with our elitist attitude. Um, no, we are merely trying to live within a budget. If you can't afford gourmet dining then you make do with rice and beans. that's not due to any lack of empathy, it's merely due to a lack of money.

Everyone has to make do with less, not just "the rich." That's what "shared" sacrifice means.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

I know that if I were to get laid off, I'd collect unemployment until it ran out. I may have morals and ethics, but I'm also not stupid enough to pass up something free.

Unemployment insurance is not "free." Your employer pays for it. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Ask your comptroller how much your company pays each month in unemployment insurance premiums.