What do you think of people who seem so unconcerned about the poor in our country?

Question

A few simple facts. Even with a minimum wage increase to $7.25 and a fifteen percent tax rate that amounts to $12,818 a year after taxes and that's counting fifty two fourty hour weeks. If that same person pays $400 a month rent, $75 a week for food and $75 a week for other expenses, that adds up to $11,600. That leaves $1218 for the year for the rest of anything. How can people be so callous to say the stupid things they do, like go to college and get a better education.

Answer 1

Because eveyone needs someone to kick. The poor are not only ignored, but also reviled for their own misfortune. Maybe the more fortunate need a taste of misfortune in order to empathize with the unfortunate.

Answer 2

Your question is full of errors and misconceptions:

$7.25 x 40 hours x 52 weeks = $15,080 in Gross income. According to the income tax estimator I've linked to below, the tax bill is $663 for a single individual. That's an effective income tax rate of 4.4%, not 15%. If we are talking about a family, then they have a negative tax rate due to the Earned Income Credit. And that's a very generous credit if you have a family on a very low income like this. It would add thousands to their yearly income.

Now back to the calculations. To be honest, we also have to deduct 8.25% for Social Security and Medicare. That brings the net yearly pay down to $13,180 or $1,098 net monthly pay.

Now we deduct for rent, food and other expenses using the figures you provided, and that leaves $98 extra per month.

Is there a big reason to be concerned about this individual? Are they doomed to work minimum wage jobs all their life?

You have to realize that most people don't stay at minimum wage for long. Most people advance past that as they get promoted or find better employment.

The naked truth of the matter is that most poor people are poor due to their own life decisions. It IS their fault. They chose not to complete high school, or have kids too young out of wedlock, or immigrated to this country not knowing the language, etc. Those that don't make these life choices, usually only stay on minimum wage while they are working part time jobs in high school.

I'm all in favor of giving people temporary gov't aid to improve their lives by completing their education and finding new work, but it should be temporary.

Answer 3

Do you consider parents who teach their children the value of self reliance, good decision making and higher education unconcerned? Far from it.

"Give a man to fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime." We support the latter. Sounds like you support the former. Both are fueled by compassionate intentions, but I'll continue to support providing the poor with integrity, dignity and the chance to make things better.

Open yourself to the idea that we both want the same outcome, but have different methods of going about it.

Also, I encourage you to read the sources listed about the minimum wage. Minimum wage does not equate to the poor and raising the minimum wage does not equate to helping the poor.

In fact, it could hurt the poor in many ways. If you support raising the minimum wage I could argue that you are not concerned about the poor. Given your question though, I'd say you are concerned, but uneducated. So, if you really want to help the poor do them and yourself a favor and learn why teaching a man to fish is far more effective than giving him a fish.

Answer 4

How can people be so high-and-mighty and self-righteous as to judge others who are allegedly "unconcerned". First of all, please don't just quote numbers--go out and find these poor people. Most people who are actually poor do not work full-time or even close to it. Most people who earn the minimum wage are not sole breadwinners for families--their income is the second or third income in the household, and they work part-time. Most people who earn the minimum do not stay at that rate for more than a year--they increase their value to employers and thereby receive increases in the rate of pay. It sounds like you advocate intervention by the government--more than we already have. Please see the quote below.

From Ludwig von Mises, Human Action, Part 2, Chapter IX:

"All present-day political parties strive after the earthly well-being and prosperity of their supporters. They promise that they will render economic conditions more satisfactory to their followers. With regard to this issue there is no difference between the Roman Catholic Church and the various Protestant denominations as far as they intervene in political and social questions, between Christianity and the non-Christian religions, between the advocates of economic freedom and the various brands of Marxian materialism, between nationalists and internationalists, between racists and the friends of interracial peace. It is true that many of these parties believe that their own group cannot prosper except at the expense of other groups, and even go so far as to consider the complete annihilation of other groups or their enslavement as the necessary condition of their own group's prosperity. Yet, extermination or enslavement of others is for them not an ultimate end, but a means for the attainment of what they aim at as an ultimate end: their own group's flowering. If they were to learn that their own designs are guided by spurious theories and would not bring about the beneficial results expected, they would change their programs."

Compare the conditions for the bottom __ (you select) percentile of citizens today, in constant dollars or in actual material conditions, with the conditions of that same group 50 or 100 years ago. Today's poor are doing much better. The comparable group in 50 or 100 years from now will be doing better still--but NOT because of the government. Free enterprise and individual liberty create the BEST conditions for improved standards of living. Some people are too impatient--they want poverty and other ills to go away now. They think equality is the great value. But that cannot be done in a manner consistent with individual liberty. The golden goose would be dead. Freedom to succeed cannot be separated from the freedom to fail. Instead of everybody being equally wealthy, we would all be equally poor.

Answer 5

EVERYONE gets to choose what to do with the money they make. Choosing to spend it all on things that cost them even more money, seems to be the pattern of the poor.

We can help the poor by giving them more money. They will simply spend that as well and be no farther ahead. The government will send ANYONE to school for free if poor so THEY CAN get that better education. Many simply choose again to NOT DO IT.

We cannot babysit everyone ! People need to see that they are making the wrong choices and WANT to change, not just sit there and whine about it and have another snack while doing so.

I guess it looks like I am one of the callous ones... sorry ! But life really IS full of choices!

Answer 6

This country affords the opportunity to do whatever one cares to do or create whatever one wishes to create. Everyone has this opportunity. Granted, there are some in this country who have been born into more fortunate circumstances with regard to wealth. But in a free market system such as ours, those with born into less fortunate circumstances have less to lose when considering venturing off on their own on a business idea. Raising the minimum wage and other government mandates that try to "help" the poor and enacted in the name of the poor do nothing but hurt the poor and make it easier for those who have been born into wealth. When we begin to have the government back off and allow businesses and people to act freely in the economy will the perils of the poor be cured. And in this country, what do we consider poor? Car ownership, cable tv, Air Jordan, iPods. I read alot of criticism of Oprah donating money for a school in Africa. I heard that she did not want to donate that here because the "poor" kids in the inner city stated the things they needed were iPods, tv's, designer clothes etc. The kids in Africa said they needed uniforms for school. If you continue to hand out money to those who have not earned it (this includes a minimum wage increase), their hands will continue to reach for more freebies. Similar to wild animals who are fed and become used to feeding. They expect it when in reality they become lazy and cannot exist in the real environment where they live. A free market economy is the only fair system because it rewards productivity. Children need to learn the free market sysetm and that they can start a venture on their own and should be encouraged to do so rather than foolishly protest the government and ask for handouts. The only cure to poverty is wealth and the only way to accumulate wealth is to work hard. You do not even need an education. Our system allows for one to profit and thrive on any one of an indivdual's unique God-given gifts.

Answer 7

You've got a solid point there ... the idea of going to college and improving your level of education is definitely a stupid one to espouse.

For certain, the impoverished should aim lower and try to become as uneducated as possible; that seems like a pretty failsafe way to improve their quality of life, don't you think?

Was there some sort of actual point to your rant, or were you just hoping to dazzle somebody with a little math and self-righteousness?

Give me as many thumbs down as you like. Championing education is in no way related to any sort of disdain for the poor of our country or anyone else's. And while we're at it, it's pretty goddamn hilarious that someone dumb enough to drool over the candidacy of John Edwards would try to lecture another human being about compassion.

Hate to break it to you, but if bleeding heart liberals like Edwards and his compatriot idiots on the other side of the aisle would quit running a welfare state, the poor would be a lot better off. The United States federal government is the single most fiscally irresponsible organization on the face of the earth, and you want me to give them *more* money under the guise of helping the poor? How about you take your tiny head out of your ***, quit voting for braindead fools who tax the people into oblivion, and maybe you'll find out that the people can much more efficiently support the poor of this nation without the so-called benevolent intervention of the government.

Answer 8

When people who claim to care about the poor are willing to discuss personal responsibility and the consequences of bad decision making, we will start to listen to you. And if people who claim to care about the poor are EVER willing to discuss the following, we will all do back flips for you.

Illegitimacy Rates:
Black ~ 68%
Hispanic ~ 45%
White ~ 24%
Asian ~ 15%

Median Household Income:
Asian ~ $61,000
White ~ $51,000
Hispanic ~ $36,000
Black ~ $31,000

I won't hold my breath waiting for the "carers" of the poor to mention this just ONCE.
-----
And calling rich people "lucky", like "Progressives" always do, is simply a way of never looking in the mirror to examine the choices of one's own life.

"It's not my fault; I am a victim of society" = the new American motto.
-----
One more thing. I live in Louisiana. The city of New Orleans has been owned, operated, controlled, dominated and governed by caring compassionate "progressives" for 50 years. They did a great job, didn't they?
.

Answer 9

Did you see the documentary on the homeless man who was given $100,000? It was covered by Oprah. He blew it all in a couple of weeks by showboating, giving it away, and buying frivolous stuff. It doesn't matter how much you give to the poor. Chances are, they'll probably stay poor... unless you are Eddie Murphy in "Trading Places".

Answer 10

I'll tell you what I think of people (such as the asker) too stupid to read empirical research:

They're too lazy to find out that the majority of minimum wage workers are middle class teenagers.

Is that who you're whining about? They don't have enough gas for their Suburban while someone who really needs the money can't get a damned job? And you're worried about the teenager???!?!?!



Why can't people read empirical literature before they form ignorant, stupid, and incorrect views? The world may never know.



Edit to respond to the below point. I own "Nickle and Dimed"; and I find it highly entertaining that someone who forms their world view from a single anecdotal story would lecture ME about twisted data.

This enough "twisted data" from respected economists for you? Just let me know:

Brown, Charles - "Minimum Wage Laws" - Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1988 133-146

Krueger, Alan - Myth and Measurement, The Economics of Minimum Wage - Princeton University Press 1995

Katx, Lawrence - The Effects of Minimum Wage" - Industrial and Labor Relations Review 1992 6-21




Also, feel free to let me know when Barb completes her PhD in Economics.