Politics, straight up
Feb. 9th, 2005 08:36 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumI was talking about Social Security yesterday (the abuse of this story having numbers infuriates me. The most common is the "4 percent" problem. Yes, it's four percent of the paycheck, it's 30 percent of the SS tax), and it occured to me there was a way to increase the revenue, which wouldn't hurt the worker at all.
It, based on the evidence of places which have tried it, would help the economy.
Forget the raising of the cap (though I'm not against that, and it could generate a fair chunk o' change). No, raise the minimum wage. Looking at those places which have insituted a "living wage" law we see that 1: it doesn't hurt business. We draw this conclusion from the small businesses which can't spread the increase out by sinking it in a national budget; they haven't disappeared in places with a living wage. We also know that things which claim to be on narrow profit margin don't have such narrow margins as all that. McDonald's and Burger King have not left Santa Monica, I can only assume the franchisee is still making money.
2: It puts more money into the local economy. Someone who can't put a large chink of change into stocks/bonds, etc. isn't going to suddenly stop spending money and start investing in the market. No, he's going to take the wife and kids out to dinner once in a while. He might get a computer, or a freezer (so he can go to Costco and take advantage of being able to buy large quantities). He will reinvest in the local economy.
3: It will increase SS revenue.
The present minimum wage is a shame, and embarrasement. A crime. When it takes something like 60 hours a week to make enough to have one's own apartment, when people who are stuck in jobs that don't pay much more than that have to share rooms (and get looked down on as a result, seen as somehow less than worthy), when people have no hope of being able to send their kids to school; so those kids can move into the middle class... when the baseline we demand is an expectation so low it's looks like a variation on the workhouse... we, as a nation, have failed.
Oh yeah, go look at the the splash page for Google today. Gung ha fa choi
It, based on the evidence of places which have tried it, would help the economy.
Forget the raising of the cap (though I'm not against that, and it could generate a fair chunk o' change). No, raise the minimum wage. Looking at those places which have insituted a "living wage" law we see that 1: it doesn't hurt business. We draw this conclusion from the small businesses which can't spread the increase out by sinking it in a national budget; they haven't disappeared in places with a living wage. We also know that things which claim to be on narrow profit margin don't have such narrow margins as all that. McDonald's and Burger King have not left Santa Monica, I can only assume the franchisee is still making money.
2: It puts more money into the local economy. Someone who can't put a large chink of change into stocks/bonds, etc. isn't going to suddenly stop spending money and start investing in the market. No, he's going to take the wife and kids out to dinner once in a while. He might get a computer, or a freezer (so he can go to Costco and take advantage of being able to buy large quantities). He will reinvest in the local economy.
3: It will increase SS revenue.
The present minimum wage is a shame, and embarrasement. A crime. When it takes something like 60 hours a week to make enough to have one's own apartment, when people who are stuck in jobs that don't pay much more than that have to share rooms (and get looked down on as a result, seen as somehow less than worthy), when people have no hope of being able to send their kids to school; so those kids can move into the middle class... when the baseline we demand is an expectation so low it's looks like a variation on the workhouse... we, as a nation, have failed.
Oh yeah, go look at the the splash page for Google today. Gung ha fa choi
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-02-09 06:02 pm (UTC)Alaska.com gives the following as costs Housing and Food
Shopping to feed three I am spending about half that, and I buy more costly cuts of meat (albeit in bulk) and use things like olive oil and vegetables from the farmers market.
I also have to wonder about the pay structure in a state which offers a Cost of Living Allowance Alaska COLA.pdf though I might be misunderstanding it. If I am it is just for retireees Retired COLA but it more seems that is an additional COLA offered to those who retire in Alaska.
When one runs various checks on the relative merits of places to live the larger cities in Alaska do well, because, while the cost of living is highe than the national average (by 10-20 percent) the slaray is even higher than that (running between 20-30 percent above the national average).
But those combine to make minimum wage an even more meagre pittance than it is. If one needs two jobs to get by on it in Little Rock, how much more work must one do to get by in Fairbanks?
TK