QuinSnydersHair
Well-Known Member
I considered that. Out here, they're all basically open 6am-11pm with one in every 5-10 open 24 hours.
Ready for the $9 Big Mac, for real?
- Thread starter LogGrad98
- Start date
I considered that. Out here, they're all basically open 6am-11pm with one in every 5-10 open 24 hours.
I addressed it by pointing out that the objection was irrelevant. The notion than further increases will be necessary later is not a good reason to avoid raising the minimum wage now; inflation means the need to raise it will be there, regardless.
Which benefits?
Raising the minimum wage would reduce welfare dependance, but would not alter CHIP/Medicaid enrollment after the expansions of the ACA.
Who are all these employers providing benefits that they don't need to offer? If you are offering a 401K, or working people full-time, etc., it's because this is important to employee retention. That doesn't change when your profit margin shrinks.
Depends on the position. Manager will still make more per hour than employees. People who have earned raises through years of service will be back at the starting wage.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
How are you supposed to maintain infinite growth when the world has finite resources?
FWIW your post was a great one.
Molecules aren't finite.
It's not a problem for our day.
Recycle like ****'s.
Lots of back massages and handjobs to circulate in place of growth.
Take your pick of five.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
If we are referencing nuclear fission, then the area in which we leave the by-products of these 'molecular' reactions is both finite, and an environmental burden.
Ladies and gentlemen, the American motto.
People often forget that Reducing and Reusing are both more important, and more potent in its consequences than recycling.
fiksed
J
JAZZGASM
Guest
Unless the poverty level moves up, food stamps, subsidized housing, etc. Not to mention that with additional income they will likely have a tax burden (where with the ind. exemption and credits they were probably getting refunded more than they paid in...
Not true at all. People who make under $30k are the most likely group not to have minimum essential coverage under the ACA. And this includes all of those covered under Medicaid (medicaid is considered minimum essential coverage under the ACA and will allow an individual to avoid paying a penalty). The income levels for medicaid/chip coverage were not altered by the ACA. The implementation of the ACA has caused less than 5% more people in this income level to get insurance. Most still do not have insurance and will have to pay the small penalty. Yes, their employers will be offering it to employees over 30 hours (or paying a penalty if the employees go to the exchange if they don't offer coverage, but most of these employees will reject coverage because even with a subsidy, they don't want to pay for it.
This is the rhetoric that is spit out, but it is not true in most cases. This is my area of work, and I can tell you that the majority of the employers I work with have coverage so they can max their own retirement. When I propose changes their biggest concern is maxing their own deferrals. When they have tight years, they make smaller contributions. (such as moving from the 3% nonelective contribution to the up to 4% for those who contribute [for those employers that know the majority of their employees don't contribute which costs them less but allows them to still max out their own personal deferrals]). 401(k) plans do not have much retention power except for high level employees, and these can easily be replaced with nonqualified deferred compensation arrangements that do not have the nondiscrimination and participation requirements of an ERISA covered qualified plan., During a recession when there are more qualified candidates than jobs, 401(k) plans don't matter much.
True. But there won't be as much of a gap. But that was not what my hypothetical was referring to. I was speaking about those who have worked hard to get above the minimum, only to get placed back at the minimum with everyone else at the bottom. I even had this happen to me back when minimum wage increased back in the day.
Those benefits are scheduled to fall less quickly than income rises.
One of these two things is true: you are wrong, or the company I work for, which specializes in this work, just spent an large amount of resources to register the working poor in Medicaid when they did not previously qualify for it. Given yhour previous lack of reliability, care to guess which way I'm betting?
I overstated my point on 401(K), probably. However, health insurance figures hugely into retention, and companies can not just discard it without consequences to retention.
J
JAZZGASM
Guest
1. Again, I am referencing what would happen with an immediate raise to 15hr which is being advocated for by many.
2. The ACA tried to expand medicare and chip, but the supreme ct overruled it and it is up to states to decide, and some states have. Utah was a state that did not expand. Employers are going to push to get those eligible covered so they can avoid the penalty, because as I stated before medicaid is minimal essential coverage which can help an employer avoid the aca penalty for noncoverage... States can choose to expand medicaid, but even with those that have, my point still stands that many 15hr full time employees would not qualify . States that have chosen to expand medicaid is based on 133% of the fpl. At 15hr a worker would have to have a family of 4 and no other income to qualify. I would explain more , but i am typing on my phone. Exit: your state of Missouri did not expand Medicaid either.
https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/...ere’s-no-Medicaid-expansion-for-Missouri.html
3. 401k for retention is important, but less so in a recession. And my point was you could do away with it and give the employees you want to keep deferred comp (401k plans have to be offered to most employees due to nondiscrimination rules deferred comp can be given to any group you want while not offering it to the low paid, easily replacable employees.)
4. What was I not reliable on? There are many studies on both sides of the minimum wage debate. While I may tend to agree with some studies (such as te one I quoted from the nonpartisan congressional budget office among others). Most of these studies are based on diffherent theories and it is difficult to prove either side wrong. But all of my statements were from legitimate literature.
Last edited by a moderator:
Regardless, the fall-off in benefits is less than the increase in wages at any particular stage. If they lose all benefits, it's because they are more than making up for it in wages.
I live and work in Illinois. In any case, I'm glad we agree that in states that accepted the medicaid expansion, a statement like "The income levels for medicaid/chip coverage were not altered by the ACA." would be false.
I have responded to quite a few over the course of this thread, including one in this post.
J
JAZZGASM
Guest
I generally post on this board by phone as my work blocks this and many other sites, so while my answers may not be fully written out they are accurate. That said, when I said medicaid was not expanded by the ACA, it was not wrong, but I can see where my statement was misleading. The Supreme Court ruled that states could not be forced to expand coverage as the ACA TRIED to do. States could choose to provide coverage above and beyond the federally required minimum. But that was true before the ACA was implemented.. Medicaid is a joint fed/state program, and states have always had the ability to offer expansion. So the ACA did not expand Medicaid, but many States chose to expand anyway as the federal government offered to pay more for states that expanded (all the ACA did was offer more $$$ if states want to expand). My answer to this was short because it wasn't important to my original point: People who work FT @ $15/hr (family of four or fewer) will not qualify many welfare programs including Medicaid (even in states that have chosen to expand to the 138% FPL), when you stated they still would. So I will concede that my statement was misleading, but that statement I was responding to by you: "Raising the minimum wage would reduce welfare dependance, but would not alter CHIP/Medicaid enrollment after the expansions of the ACA." which was clearly erroneous. States that have expanded to the 138% above FPL will not change that for the average family if minimum wage is $15/hr, unless the poverty level is changed. At the current minimum wage, it has had an impact for states that have chosen to expand.
All of my other statements in this regard are accurate as well. Even taking into account states that have CHOSEN to expand, those under approx 32k of income are still the largest group of uninsured. Sadly, if you take away those covered by CHIP/Medicaid, fewer than 40% (IIRC) of this group would have insurance.
Finally, your statement: "Regardless, the fall-off in benefits is less than the increase in wages at any particular stage. If they lose all benefits, it's because they are more than making up for it in wages."is inaccurate as well. While it may give more buying power to a family with a ****load of dependents (which happens in Utah) but it won't benefit the majority of american families (average family size of 2.5)
Hypo: Family of three in SLC with one wage earner who was making 7.25/hr ($15,080/yr.) and bumped to $15 ($31,200), here is the result in Utah assuming the poverty levels do not change:
1) This family would no longer qualify for Section 8 housing. In Utah, the subsidy can cover almost 100% of the rent (I believe minimum out of pocket is $50, but it has been a while since I helped a client with this). So they will likely be paying $600/mo. (based on a quick search this seems more than reasonable) in rent assuming they have a small apartment. Section 8 allows a 2 bd. rental up to $700, but we will stick with $600 to be as reasonable as possible. They will also lose close to $200 in utility assistance. A minimum wage earner adjusted income would cause them to pay about $150/mo for this unit. That is $7800 lost per year of tax-free and FICA free income.
2) They would no longer qualify for food stamps (but would still qualify for WIC). In Utah for a 7.25/hr earner, that is $497/mo., or $5964/yr.
3) They will not longer qualify for Medicaid or CHIP (this would be true in states that chose to expand Medicare too). To keep minimum coverage, the employer can offer coverage of $247/mo and they won't qualify for a subsidy. $2964/yr. and again, with a higher deductible/out of pocket cost compared to Medicaid.
4) Taxes- Neither scenario will cause the family to pay taxes, but the 7.25/hr family will receive a refund of $4250, roughly double of the $15/hr earner ($2182 refund) a difference of $2068 (lets just say $2,000). This is only Federal tax. https://www.taxbrain.com/tax-estimator.asp
5) FICA- They will be paying FICA on all of their wages at 6.2%. The difference in income would take away an additional $999.44 in income.
Total $7800+$5964+2964+2000+999.44=$19,727.44 in benefits lost. This will leave them with less money and a deductible on insurance they cannot afford. If you up their premium to a lower deducible insurance, it further decreases their spending ability. Additionally they will have to pay sales tax (3%) on all of their food purchases. (Food stamps do not have sales tax).
Even if you get generous and lower these amounts, it would be nearly impossible for them to be as you say "more than making up for it in wages".
This family would be earning an additional $16,120 and losing close to $20k, and there may be other benefits they lose out on that I am not taking into account.
Last edited by a moderator:
I will never understand the snobby Candiasses/Euros/Chinese pointing this finger when we save the world time and again. We pay a hefty price in our standard of living for doing this and expect, nor get, any thanks.
J
JAZZGASM
Guest
I will never understand the snobby Candiasses/Euros/Chinese pointing this finger when we save the world time and again. We pay a hefty price in our standard of living for doing this and expect, nor get, any thanks.
Next time you meet a french person ask them if they speak german. When they say no, tell them "you're welcome".
'Murica.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
I will never understand the snobby Candiasses/Euros/Chinese pointing this finger when we save the world time and again. We pay a hefty price in our standard of living for doing this and expect, nor get, any thanks.
I was gonna post on my re-defined love for America after checking out the war museum in Pristina, Kosovo.
People love America there probably more than every country on the planet outside of USA itself.
Regardless, your post doesn't take away from the point I'm trying to make: The American pursuit of perpetual Economic Growth conveniently ignores the environmental impossibility of its very pursuits.
J
JAZZGASM
Guest
If minimum wage goes to $15/hr across the board, it would not surprise me to see a push to raise the poverty level soon after. All this will do is increase the minimum wage earners overall spending ability to be on par with a $50-$60,000 wage earner who pays taxes and gets no subsidies. It will give them even more buying power compared to many college grads with large student loan debt.
Last edited by a moderator:
I understood your point before responding the first time. The world will adjust and you're not going to accelerate that much by thumping chests. Technological advancements/price hikes are the only thing that will make us change our dirty ways. Now go order another Chanel fanny pack and enjoy destructive luxuries.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
Waiting for technological silver bullets and price hikes might be too long of a wait, and it might cost us an entire habitat.
Frank, ideally, would you want to change things sooner rather than later? If so, why not devise a way to change things up?
As a Canadian, I am familiar with how destructive our lifestyles are, particularly in relation to other nations.
However, acknowledging that there is a problem with my habits is the first step to ridding myself of the said problem.
So, we agree that the ACA put forth the money that is being used to fund the expansions, and yet you maintain the position that this does not mean the ACA expanded Medicaid, because providing the means and impetus for a phenomenon apparently has nothing to do with being a cause of the phenomenon, according to you. You have a peculiar view of political causation.
1) I made no such statement.
2) The level of benefits is likely to be variant from state to state. In particular, the federal poverty levels in Hawaii and Alaska are much higher than in the lower 48; but there are also differences between what the states themselves offer. You continued use of a blanket statement on benefits is misguided.
3) Even today, most people who make minimum wage don't work the full 40 hours. Continuing to base your argument on a 40-hour work-week is a distortion.
4) You keep talking about $15/hour, but many proposals would have far less of an increase.
5) For reference, the actual poverty guidelines are linked.
https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/14poverty.cfm
I agree that in states that refused the expansion, enrollment would drop after an increase in minimum wage for employees lucky enough to work at least 32 hours for as much as $15/hour. That would be a minority of minimum-wage employees.
By this you mean, of course, that most would then qualify for federally subsidized insurance, which is often available for a few dollars a month to people whose income is in the low 30s.
Just to be clear: you are claiming at a family of 3, on an income of $15,080/year, will receive $7,800/year in Section 8 benefits? I do not believe you. I think you are using "can cover" as a weasel word here.
Locally, if you are making that $15,080/year, you'll be expected to contribute 30% to your rent, or $377/mo, that is, $3904/year. If you have a 2-bedroom apartment, at the very most you will receive $317 from section 8. As you increase, the amount of rent you pay increases by 30% of your income.
https://eslha.org/category.php?id=NDQ=
Food stamps are also income-based. Given your misrepresentation in 1), I'd like to see some evidence that 3 people at $15,080/year would get that $497/mo before i take this number seriously.
You can usually get insurance for less on the federal/state exchanges, from what I've heard.
Given that your first number was off by $4K/year, I did not bother to do any checking on the rest of you numbers. One or two of them may even be accurate. Even then, this is under the assumption of full-time work, which, again, does not describe most minimum-wage jobs.