2016-2018 Poverty increased in 943 counties - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15056067
Ter wrote:No.
Any garment worker with some experience earns more than the minimum wage.
Often double that.


Not according to the evidence.

    The majority of garment workers in Bangladesh earn little more than the minimum wage, set at 3,000 taka a month (approximately £25), far below what is considered a living wage, calculated at 5,000 taka a month (approximately £45), which would be the minimum required to provide a family with shelter, food and education.

https://waronwant.org/sweatshops-bangladesh

Again, no.
The team that checks compliance rigorously checks that salaries and overtime are paid on time, and that includes a session with workers where management and supervisors are not present.
For your information, there are two types of compliance, technical and social. The companies that do the compliance checking are serious companies based in France and Switzerland.


Your faith in neoliberalism is clear.

I do not share it.

I will go with the evidence instead of your unsupported ad hoc claims.

Why are you mentioning clean water ? It would be stupid for the owner of a garment factory to supply contaminated water. Sick employees cannot work.


I guess you are also unaware of how the garment industry in Bangladesh pollutes local water supplies.

No. Of course Bangladesh is better off due to the export-oriented garments industry.
It employs millions of people and is responsible for 85% of all exports.
And as I mentioned, it has improved the situation of women in society. As earners they get respect.


And again, the evidence contradicts you.

I will believe the evidence instead of your repeated and unsupported claims.

It depends how you define long lasting. That industry is now about thirty years active in the country but there is no guarantee that it will continue forever. Typically, such an industry adapts to competition by switching to higher value items and more skilled labour with more sophisticated machines. China is now doing exactly that because their wages have gone up too much to compete with other countries in the Region. Many Chinese are now in Bangladesh as managers and owners of garment factories.


You completely ignored my point.

I will assume that you concede that the impact on developing workers is te same as middle class workers in developed countries: the jobs leave for countries where there is more profit to be made. And since workers in developing countries also have to deal with other problems that workers in developed countries do not, it is incorrect to claim that the middle class in developed countries are the biggest losers.

—————————

Patrickov wrote:The OP opened this post to tell us that Republican Administration was the cause of this problem, which, as the Honourable Gentleman from Estonia had pointed out, is untrue.


As far as I can see, both parties have openly supported neoliberal economic policies over the last few decades.
#15056072
Pants-of-dog wrote:The majority of garment workers in Bangladesh earn little more than the minimum wage, set at 3,000 taka a month (approximately £25), far below what is considered a living wage, calculated at 5,000 taka a month (approximately £45), which would be the minimum required to provide a family with shelter, food and education.


You source for information is wrong and outdated:

The legal minimum wage for garment workers in the country is 8,000 taka (£73.85) a month, slightly less than the amount received by workers spoken to by the Guardian. The amount was increased by 2,700Tk a month in December, but campaigners say workers need 16,000Tk to live a comfortable life in Bangladesh.Jan 21, 2019

https://www.theguardian.com › business › jan › low-wages-garment-workers..

Pants-of-dog wrote:And again, the evidence contradicts you.

It is pretty ludicrous to think that the garments industry is not beneficial to Bangladesh.
Four million jobs and 85% of the exports of the country.
You live in a strange world, POD

Pants-of-dog wrote:I will assume that you concede that the impact on developing workers is te same as middle class workers in developed countries: the jobs leave for countries where there is more profit to be made.

No. The industry is there for decades and the investments made in the industry will not come to nothing, as I said, the industry will adapt to the changing circumstances.
Indonesia adapted to the loss of the sweater component of the industry, and so will Bangladesh in the future.
You are adamant to make your point but reality stares you in the face and tells you that you are wrong.
#15056078
Ter wrote:You source for information is wrong and outdated:


https://www.theguardian.com › business › jan › low-wages-garment-workers..


Your source also discusses how neoliberalism had failed these people in other ways, including the text you quoted where it shows that they receive about half the wage needed to live.

It is pretty ludicrous to think that the garments industry is not beneficial to Bangladesh.
Four million jobs and 85% of the exports of the country.
You live in a strange world, POD


If you think so.

I live in a real world with actual evidence.

The same evidence that proves your support of neoliberalism and sweatshops is worng.

No. The industry is there for decades and the investments made in the industry will not come to nothing, as I said, the industry will adapt to the changing circumstances.
Indonesia adapted to the loss of the sweater component of the industry, and so will Bangladesh in the future.
You are adamant to make your point but reality stares you in the face and tells you that you are wrong.


Sure, whatever.

Do you think middle class westerners lose out because jobs left the country? That is what you argued.

And now you are saying that these jobs also leave developing countries, but this time it is magically beneficial, because logic does not matter?
#15056084
Pants-of-dog wrote:Your source also discusses how neoliberalism had failed these people in other ways, including the text you quoted where it shows that they receive about half the wage needed to live.

Your source is biased and cites an unrealistic minimum wage.
Under the present circumstances. Tk 16,000 would make the existing factories uncompetitive. Sad but true.
My source (The Guardian!) demonstrated that your earlier source was outdated.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Do you think middle class westerners lose out because jobs left the country? That is what you argued.

I am still saying the same thing. The middle class in the west has lost out due to globalism.
I am not the only one saying that.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And now you are saying that these jobs also leave developing countries, but this time it is magically beneficial, because logic does not matter?

They do not leave the developing countries haphazardly, they leave when they become uncompetitive and replaced by other improved industries .
It is a race to the bottom. The rich in the West and the rich in the developing countries benefit.
The poor in the developing countries also benefit because they get to earn a salary, the government of the poor country earns money from the industries through taxation, builds hospitals, roads and so on..
The middle class in the west loses out because their jobs are exported.
If you challenge even those simple truths, I will have to make a little drawing with stick figures for you.
#15056090
Ter wrote:Your source is biased and cites an unrealistic minimum wage.
Under the present circumstances. Tk 16,000 would make the existing factories uncompetitive. Sad but true.
My source (The Guardian!) demonstrated that your earlier source was outdated.


And your source also pointed out that it was not enough money to live on.

I am still saying the same thing. The middle class in the west has lost out due to globalism.
I am not the only one saying that.


And no one is disagreeing.

My disagreement is with your incorrect assertion that they have been hurt the most.

They do not leave the developing countries haphazardly, they leave when they become uncompetitive and replaced by other improved industries .
It is a race to the bottom. The rich in the West and the rich in the developing countries benefit.


Yes. So far, this is correct.

The poor in the developing countries also benefit because they get to earn a salary,


Since I have already provided evidence that they would benefit just as much (economically) without sweatshops, it is incorrect to assert that this is an improvement.

the government of the poor country earns money from the industries through taxation, builds hospitals, roads and so on..


But no more than they would earn without neoliberalism and sweatshops.

The middle class in the west loses out because their jobs are exported.


They do not leave the developing countries haphazardly, they leave when they become uncompetitive and replaced by other improved industries .
It is a race to the bottom. The rich in the West and the rich in the developing countries benefit.

And since we already discussed how the working class in developing countries also have their jobs exported, you must logically agree that they lose out in the same way and to the same degree as the middle class in developed countries.

I have pointed this out three times now and you still ignore it.

If you challenge even those simple truths, I will have to make a little drawing with stick figures for you.


If you want.

Evidence would be a better idea.
#15056098
Pants-of-dog wrote:And your source also pointed out that it was not enough money to live on.

Those were "campaigners" saying that.
I am not disputing that 16,000 Bangladesh Taka would be better than 8,000 Taka but that is not realistic under the circumstances.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Since I have already provided evidence that they would benefit just as much (economically) without sweatshops, it is incorrect to assert that this is an improvement.

I dispute your "evidence".
Farmers and rickshaw wallahs do not pay taxes and neither do domestic servants.
People in the garments industry and in the side businesses of that industry (freight forwarders, merchandisers, washing factories, suppliers of enzymes, suppliers of accessories for the industry, and so on and so forth) do pay taxes and do import machinery and do invest capital.
The garment industry and the discovery and exploitation of natural gas have allowed Bangladesh to have an annual GDP growth of 6 - 8 % over the last ten years.
And you come and tell us that the garment industry is not beneficial to the country ?
You are being silly.
#15056115
Ter wrote:Those were "campaigners" saying that.
I am not disputing that 16,000 Bangladesh Taka would be better than 8,000 Taka but that is not realistic under the circumstances.


Being paid a living might be unrealistic in your opinion, but it does not change the fact that they do not make substantially more than minimum wage.

I dispute your "evidence".
Farmers and rickshaw wallahs do not pay taxes and neither do domestic servants.
People in the garments industry and in the side businesses of that industry (freight forwarders, merchandisers, washing factories, suppliers of enzymes, suppliers of accessories for the industry, and so on and so forth) do pay taxes and do import machinery and do invest capital.
The garment industry and the discovery and exploitation of natural gas have allowed Bangladesh to have an annual GDP growth of 6 - 8 % over the last ten years.
And you come and tell us that the garment industry is not beneficial to the country ?
You are being silly.


Again, provide evidence.

Until then, this is you simply ignoring the actual evidence brought to the table and repeating your disproven claims.

And to provide another nail in the coffin, please note that Cuba is doing far better than Bangladesh.
#15056116
I work with the poor and homeless several times a week. I know a great many of them. What do some of them do if they can't find any job at all? They "fly sign" (panhandle with a sign) or just ask people for money.

A great many of them work odd jobs. So what are they paid? Whatever they can get. Why? Because they are hungry. Or their spouses and children are. Or both. Some turn to prostitution or some other crime. Poverty sucks.

A man with a wife working for the minimum wage in Georgia is way below the federal poverty level. It does not matter one whit how hard he works. In fact, some of the hardest jobs are the lowest paying. Even here in Arizona where the minimum wage is 11.50 an hour (among the highest in the nation), a husband and wife both working full time at these wages barely qualify for the "middle class" and are, in fact, quite poor at $46K per year. After day care/babysitting and some minimal health care they have little left for anything like luxury. (I am not asking anyone to feel sorry for them just stating a fact.)

All of that said. Jobs that pay at the lower end of this scale are going away as we lose our manufacturing base. Old union jobs that kept these wages higher have all but gone with the loss of jobs and even a return to manufacturing is unlikely to bring them back. So?

Poverty wages serve nobody well but it serves the poor as well as they can do. Academic discussions about who is hurting more does not really serve any purpose. Bangladesh is doing what it can do to climb the ladder out of poverty. It is a slow climb for them but more importantly it is a slow climb for any one individual. And it is individuals who matter, not these aggregate data. One person caring for himself/herself faces the world of the doable. If the best they can do with their wages is to share a dirt floor with someone else then at least they have a roof. If they eat rice and splurge on soy sauce then that is what they have. It sucks but it is better than what they had before. Taking that little away from them in service to some ideal decided somewhere else does not serve them at all. We can try to make things better but at the end of the day people have to eat and that is the first most important thing.
#15056125
I've often wondered if these jobs that pay so poorly are why, with the declining manufacturing base, you've got such a low unemployment rate. People need a second job to pay the bills.
#15056130
Stormsmith wrote:I've often wondered if these jobs that pay so poorly are why, with the declining manufacturing base, you've got such a low unemployment rate. People need a second job to pay the bills.


I think that would be determined by whether or not you look at the unemployment rate as a product of the number of people working or as a product of the number of jobs filled.

Pretty sure it's the former...
#15056131
Drlee wrote:A man with a wife working for the minimum wage in Georgia is way below the federal poverty level. It does not matter one whit how hard he works. In fact, some of the hardest jobs are the lowest paying. Even here in Arizona where the minimum wage is 11.50 an hour (among the highest in the nation), a husband and wife both working full time at these wages barely qualify for the "middle class" and are, in fact, quite poor at $46K per year.


Minimum wage was never intended to be a "living wage", and certainly not a wage on which one could raise a family. Attempting to do so is, at best, irresponsible...
#15056136
BigSteve wrote:
Minimum wage was never intended to be a "living wage", and certainly not a wage on which one could raise a family. Attempting to do so is, at best, irresponsible...



"The rich do not exist in a vacuum. They need a functioning society around them to sustain their position. Widely unequal societies do not function efficiently and their economies are neither stable nor sustainable. The evidence from history and from around the modern world is unequivocal: there comes a point when inequality spirals into economic dysfunction for the whole society, and when it does, even the rich pay a steep price.

But there is a broader economic consequence: Today’s widening inequality extends to almost everything—police protection, the condition of local roads and utilities, access to decent health care, access to good public schools...

They know that something has gone wrong, but they underestimate the harm that inequality does even as they overestimate the cost of taking action. These mistaken beliefs, which have been reinforced by ideological rhetoric, are having a catastrophic effect on politics and economic policy."

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2012/05/joseph-stiglitz-the-price-on-inequality
#15056137
Minimum wage was never intended to be a "living wage", and certainly not a wage on which one could raise a family. Attempting to do so is, at best, irresponsible..


Irresponsible to work at the best job you can get? Irresponsible to try to support your family by working rather than taking government aid? And you call yourself a conservative?

Or are you saying that it is irresponsible to get married or have a family when one can't "afford" it? What about those who have good jobs and lose them? Are they irresponsible for working at the best job they can find?

And you are objectively wrong about the minimum wage not being intended to be a living wage. It was not initially called that but it was intended to be that. I would point out to you that if you take the federal minimum wage for the year I graduated from high school and factor it for inflation, it would be double what the federal minimum wage is now at $14.50 per hour. That is a living wage in much of the country. I would also ask you to consider that if the current minimum wage of $7.25, which was established in 2009, were factored for inflation alone it holds only 83% if its value then.

It is cruel to accept that people working for less than poverty wages should accept cuts to even the most despotic of wages. But it is unintelligent for politicians to favor the wealthy so much that they do not even try to understand the effect of low wages in a consumer society.

Finally. It is not conservative to favor a full time worker not being paid a living wage. Why? Because it puts them on government assistance. And government assistance, except in the most onerous of cases, is anathema to conservatives. So the $7.25 minimum wage forces its recipients to use government health care, food stamps and other government assistance instead of compelling the person who is getting their services to pay for that. In other words, people who oppose a living wage favor government subsidies to Walmart, MacDonalds and just about every country club in the country.
#15056140
BigSteve wrote:Minimum wage was never intended to be a "living wage", and certainly not a wage on which one could raise a family. Attempting to do so is, at best, irresponsible...


What is it supposed to be then if not a "living wage"?
#15056153
late wrote:"The rich do not exist in a vacuum. They need a functioning society around them to sustain their position. Widely unequal societies do not function efficiently and their economies are neither stable nor sustainable. The evidence from history and from around the modern world is unequivocal: there comes a point when inequality spirals into economic dysfunction for the whole society, and when it does, even the rich pay a steep price.

But there is a broader economic consequence: Today’s widening inequality extends to almost everything—police protection, the condition of local roads and utilities, access to decent health care, access to good public schools...

They know that something has gone wrong, but they underestimate the harm that inequality does even as they overestimate the cost of taking action. These mistaken beliefs, which have been reinforced by ideological rhetoric, are having a catastrophic effect on politics and economic policy."

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2012/05/joseph-stiglitz-the-price-on-inequality


Thank you for confirming that you have no intelligent thoughts of your own on the matter.

Dismissed...
#15056154
JohnRawls wrote:What is it supposed to be then if not a "living wage"?


When did this idea come about that it is supposed to be a living wage?

I had my first minimum wage job back in the 70's. Federal minimum wage back then was, if I recall, $2.65 an hour. When I was lucky enough to go full time I was clearing just over $75 a week after taxes.

Now, I wasn't paying rent or car insurance or buying groceries. I was a kid; my parents did that. But what I was able to do with that $75 a week was learn how to handle money. I learned how to budget for the things I wanted while still learning how to save. I disciplined myself to put $30-$40 a week into my savings account. I didn't need a lot of money, and that's good, because $75 a week wasn't a lot of money.

But I could go to the movies (I think it was $1.50 back then). I could go to McDonald's or a local diner with my friends. When I got my license I could put gas in the tank. I drove my folk's 1975 Plymouth Fury (with the 360/4 barrel police package). I could get half a tank for about six bucks. I learned how far that six bucks would take me in that car, so I learned not to be wasteful.

When I graduated high school in 1980, I had right around $4K in the bank. That was a king's ransom compared to what some of my friends had.

My Dad was a truck driver for Esso/Exxon. I can still remember him telling my grandfather how proud he was when he eclipsed the $35,000 a year mark. He paid a mortgage, made a car payment, bought groceries, school clothes for my brother and me, paid utilities and insurance; everything out of that $35K.

He knew how to do that because, when he was a kid, he had minimum wage jobs which taught him all of the things my minimum wage jobs taught me.

Minimum skills do not warrant anything but minimum compensation. If you don't want minimum compensation, and want to earn more so you can enjoy all of the things that go with making more, acquire the skills or go to school. Make yourself more valuable to your employer than someone who has no skills or education, and you'll find that you're more likely to get paid more than the other guy...
#15056155
Drlee wrote:Or are you saying that it is irresponsible to get married or have a family when one can't "afford" it? What about those who have good jobs and lose them? Are they irresponsible for working at the best job they can find?


This is what I'm saying.

I know more than a few people who got married when they could ill-afford to. They swore they'd wait to have children and then BAM!! TWINS!

That's irresponsible.

If someone loses a good job, I have no problem with them taking a minimum wage job, but I would assume they would also have a marketable skill set and would be looking for better employment. But, yeah, it would be irresponsible if they just took the first minimum wage job that came along and decided they were content with that...
#15056160
BigSteve wrote:
Thank you for confirming that you have no intelligent thoughts of your own on the matter.



Faced with the Nobel economist Stiglitz, giving up was your only option.

"Adjusted for inflation, the federal minimum wage peaked in 1968 at $8.68 (in 2016 dollars). Since it was last raised in 2009, to the current $7.25 per hour, the federal minimum has lost about 9.6% of its purchasing power to inflation. Back in 2015, The Economist estimated that, given how rich the U.S. is and the pattern among other advanced economies in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, “one would expect America … to pay a minimum wage around $12 an hour.”

"Less than half (45%) of the 2.6 million hourly workers who were at or below the federal minimum in 2015 were ages 16 to 24. An additional 23.3% are ages 25 to 34, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics; both shares have stayed more or less constant over the past decade. That 2.6 million represents less than 2% of all wage and salary workers. (See more about the demographics of minimum-wage workers.)"

That means millions of people, and millions of kids, trying to survive on a min wage income.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/04/5-facts-about-the-minimum-wage/
#15056175
Drlee wrote:This is an immensely difficult issue for a number of reasons. For me, first among them, is that the federal government has virtually guaranteed schools as much money as they want to charge by mortgaging the next generation. There is absolutely no incentive for schools to either be frugal with their resources or limit their enrollment to those who would actually benefit.

This is precisely why I do not accept moral arguments from center-left people--who dominate higher education, by the way. It's why I say the education system, the healthcare system and the government are primarily populated by unethical people. They set it up this way for their own benefit, and everyone else's expense.

Drlee wrote:Then we have the scam of online education. A student is given "credits" toward a degree virtually without human contact. And what do these online credits cost?

Right. A lot of basic education courses could be done online. Colleges and universities still operate like it's the 19th Century. They never even got particularly good at television-based lectures, because broadcasting information tends to make it free. In person presentations and college campuses would be better utilized as lab environments where students can get more hands-on experience. Testing also still has to be done in person to prevent fraud. Much of higher education could be delivered for a fraction of its retail price. I learned a lot about higher education as a business when I worked in e-procurement for higher ed.

For example, the College Board's College Level Examination Program (CLEP) tests are rigorous tests that ensure proficiency in a topic. I'll bet if you made college graduates take these tests, many would not pass. Yet, CLEP tests are legitimate substitutes for a ACE-approved course syllabus and credit hours, but most colleges and universities will not accept them or actively limit them. Why? Money. The military has a similar program to CLEP called DANTES--Defense Activity for Non-Traditional Education Support. These courses are legitimate for regionally-accredited college degrees.

Drlee wrote:And this is the best buy? Take the low number, $530.00. This puts the cost of the 120 hours a student needs to graduate at a staggering $63,000.00 without the need for the college to buy so much as a chair. This could be run from a cubical floor in a high rise.

Well, with streaming video at reasonable performance, you'd also need edge content delivery networks.

Drlee wrote:The online class I am working with will have north of 80 students each earning three credit hours. Again taking the lowest number this class will generate a minimum of $42K for the school while paying an adjunct a few thousand for doing it.

Right. Imagine what the costs are at Harvard or Yale... and their courses use the same ACE-approved course syllabi in order for their degrees to be regionally accredited as well.

Drlee wrote:Our universities are very much like our medical system. Far too expensive. (UK I am looking at you too. You suck too.)

Yes, and generally by design. The government is the same way. Productivity is far higher today than it was in 1940, for example. Yet, we have twice as many federal workers now as we did then. Work was more dangerous in 1940, yet we have a far greater percentage of the population on disability than we did in 1940.

Drlee wrote:But it is unintelligent for politicians to favor the wealthy so much that they do not even try to understand the effect of low wages in a consumer society.

It's unintelligent to assume that CEO pay and worker pay are both wage based. Highly paid people tend to have a significant portion of their income paid as stock options, and the attendant capital gains. Poor people aren't even in the game when it comes to stock options. In fact, a lot of people seek to have poor wages at start ups in exchange for stock options that if capital gains materialize, it will far outpace what they lost. I once took a voluntary pay cut in exchange for equity at a start up. A dicey situation. I gave up about $4000 in wages in exchange for stock. When the company was bought, those shares were worth $80k.

Drlee wrote:So the $7.25 minimum wage forces its recipients to use government health care,

It's a little disingenuous to complain about poor people using government health care when you want virtually everyone to be on a government-based system.
#15056178
late wrote:Faced with the Nobel economist Stiglitz, giving up was your only option.

"Adjusted for inflation, the federal minimum wage peaked in 1968 at $8.68 (in 2016 dollars). Since it was last raised in 2009, to the current $7.25 per hour, the federal minimum has lost about 9.6% of its purchasing power to inflation. Back in 2015, The Economist estimated that, given how rich the U.S. is and the pattern among other advanced economies in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, “one would expect America … to pay a minimum wage around $12 an hour.”

"Less than half (45%) of the 2.6 million hourly workers who were at or below the federal minimum in 2015 were ages 16 to 24. An additional 23.3% are ages 25 to 34, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics; both shares have stayed more or less constant over the past decade. That 2.6 million represents less than 2% of all wage and salary workers. (See more about the demographics of minimum-wage workers.)"

That means millions of people, and millions of kids, trying to survive on a min wage income.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/04/5-facts-about-the-minimum-wage/


Again, thank you for acknowledging that you have no intelligent input of your own to offer...

The rapes by Hamas, real or imagained are irreleva[…]

@Rugoz You are a fuckin' moralist, Russia coul[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]