"Josh Hill"  wrote in message
news:37gph3hsnqvt4qgjt0cjodfrvdmp508aia{at}4ax.com...
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 23:15:15 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
>  wrote:
>
> >"Josh Hill"  wrote in message
> >news:ut5oh3hamqirun07us4pd3beg2jbe0ljpa{at}4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 20:00:50 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
> >>  wrote:
> >>
> >> >> And I believe it was Carl who referred to the
minimum wage, not I. I
> >> >> referred to the poverty-level wages paid by
non-union companies like
> >> >> Wal-Mart: The minimum wage is even lower than that,
in part because
> >> >> the Republicans block increases.
> >> >>
> >> >So what should the minimum wage be?
> >> >10 dollars an hour?
> >> >20? 40?
> >> >
> >> >When I see MicDonalds, Wendy's, they're just paying minimum wage.
> >>
> >> Actually, I don't think there should be a minimum wage, because it
> >> increases unemployment and makes it difficult for businesses to hire
> >> teenagers. Instead, I'd use a negative income tax. And as a last
> >
> >That's pretty much the rationale opponents to minimum wage increases use.
> >The negative income tax looks much like the exceptions and prebates
> >discussed in "The Fair Tax".
>
> Haven't read "The Fair Tax." I disagree with the opponents of the
> minimum wage not because that aspect of their argument doesn't hold
> weight, but because in the absence of a negative income tax or
> something similar I think that the minimum wage probably does more
> good than harm.

So that brings me back to my uestion as to what the minimum wage should be.
:-)

>
> >> resort for the few who are unemployable, I'd offer a public works job
> >> to anyone willing and able to work.
> >
> >And if they're unwilling?
>
> Screw 'em. Why should we pay people to be lazy? Except for me, of
> course.
>
> >> Those who couldn't work because of sickness or disability would
> >> receive insurance payments, and those who couldn't work because they
> >
> >Like we do now (disability)
>
> Pretty much. I'd just make sure that the benefits were sufficient to
> keep people out of poverty.

Current disability is, I think,  based on how much "credits" you've built
upwhile working.
At least that's what I get from the letters sent out by SSA.

Since cost of living varies by area, there'd have to be different payouts,
resulting in further complications.
(and new opportunities for fraud).

>
> >> were addicted to drugs or alcohol would be offered residential
> >> treatment, but nothing else: putting welfare or SSI money in the hands
> >> of an addict is like pouring gasoline on a fire. And I'd give everyone
> >> an opportunity to better themselves through education.
> >>
> >
> >And that happens now, too.
>
> Unfortunately, it doesn't always. Every time they cut student aid or
> benefits and raise the tuition at state colleges some poor students
> have to drop out. And I don't think we do much for older people who
> want to go back to school, for those who have families, and so on.
> Which seems to me myopic from a social perspective. As long as a
> student is serious and making real progress towards a real degree --
> not an associate degree in hairdressing or something, there are some
> vocational schools out there that exist only to milk government
> student aid programs -- it seems to me that it's in our interest to
> support them.
>

Or they could support themselves, like I did when attending grad school.

Dennis


.
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32