Jeff Chapman\'s Absurd Belief

Fron Jeff Chapman at the Economic Policy Institute :

If you work, then you shouldn't be poor

"...A minimum wage increase from $5.15 to $7.25 would return the value of full-time work to just above its 1997 level and renew the nation's commitment to working families."

Share this

Another anti-poor asshole.

Another anti-poor asshole.

Let's make the minimum wage

Let's make the minimum wage $1 million per hour. Then every can work for a month and retire to a life of fabulous luxury.

Do they not actually

Do they not actually consider, you know, economics over there?

Why is the minimum wage

Why is the minimum wage earner always a "single parent of two children"? Doesn't a single parent of two children working at a minimum wage job indicate something else is wrong besides the minimum wage being too low?

As a teenager in the 80's, I earned $3.45/hr at a grocery store. It was actually a decent bit of money for me at the time. I had no dependents and no bills, so it was all discretionary spending. I didn't stay at minimum wage long, though; I increased my pay by doing a good job and proving I was worth more. If I had started at $7/hr, I probably wouldn't have been as motivated to try to improve my situation. Raising the minimum wage to me seems like a *disincentive* to low-income folks who might otherwise by motivated to get out of their below-poverty-level jobs.

"If you work, then you

"If you work, then you shouldn't be poor."

I agree 100%. And it just so happens that any full-time, year-round job, even one that pays only minimum wage, will put you above the federal poverty line for a household of one.

But only barely, which is why it's probably not a good idea to take on dependents when you're not qualified for any job that pays more than minimum wage.

Another anti-poor

Another anti-poor asshole.

To be fair, I don't think Jeff Chapman is intentionally anti-poor.

In my experience, one is not

In my experience, one is not poor because of how little one earns, but because of the fact that one spends more than one earns. Until I learned to spend less (by *whatever* amount) than I earned, I was poor. Subsequently, I'm not *rich*, but I'm not *poor* either!:grin:

For all intents and

For all intents and purposes, if you accept at a job under $6 per hour then you deserve it. There would be better ways to make more per hour than slaving away like mowing lawns. You could be outside making $20 per hour for half the year. Divide that by two and you're at $10 per hour. You could probably also thumb your nose at the IRS too since you'd be paid in cash more times than not.

Also, wtf does this graph mean?
http://www.epi.org/images/snap200603221.gif

Nolan, this graph is a

Nolan, this graph is a pretty poor presentation, but I think I understand it. The 100% represents the dollar figure for the poverty line (~$18,000). Any bar column above (below) the line, means your income is above (below) the $18,000 (poverty line). Accourding to him, the additional $2/hr would put income above the line.

As clear as mud? Anytime the only source is "Author", look out.

A swing and a miss.

A swing and a miss.

I agree with the statement

I agree with the statement made by Doug G.:

"Raising the minimum wage to me seems like a disincentive to low-income folks who might otherwise by motivated to get out of their below-poverty-level jobs."

It seems like it would work similarly to an over-generous welfare payment. Additionally, by creating this price floor, what incentive to employers have to reward increased productivity and better performance? The minimum wage seems to act as a deterrent for vertical mobility within a company, where individuals have to move around a lot more to get up the wage ladder. This will be a hell of a time for those low income individuals who also tend to be constrained by regional mobility.

Why wouldn't abolishing FICA and income taxes we better than increasing the minimum wage?