#46 President Joe Biden

Gern Blansten · February 2021

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

cincybearcat said:

Gern Blansten said:

Out of My Mind and Time said:

Yep. This current president is proving the tool that he is. On many fronts.

For many who make a good income, did not get anything. And that is perfect. But funny for the people that made just under the cut. Dont remember the cutoff, but what the fuck is $100 going to do with a couple making $250k/year? The $ is not directed were people that need it the most. And even then, the stimulus helps for a month or two? This crisis has lasted and will last longer than this.

Funny I type this at the bank line.

There has to be a cutoff somewhere. And keep in mind that a lot of high earners are the business owners that benefitted enormously from the PPP loans.

We've kinda been through this, but the fact that you cannot point to where the real line should be...tells you (at least me) that it's a dumb idea to begin with.

I can point to where it should be. It can ultimately be reconciled on the current year tax return so the process won't be perfect but it still works.

It's actually better than we anticipated. If you recall we were talking about the using the 2019 numbers, etc. So in the 2020 tax forms, you are asked if you received the stimulus in 2020. If you check no and you re within the income window, you receive the money in the form of refund. Now I don't know how they will handle the one being debated now. Perhaps they just update the form. And if you filed already, you'll get the check. But either way, it looks like that's how they will determine eligibility if your income has changed year over year.

I see it being a 2021 credit. Same process next year.

A lot of people are waiting to file 2020 until they clarify. Which sucks because I want to get this shit done.

If it's a tax credit for this year, you don't recognize it until you file in 22, right? That seems useless from a stimulus perspective.

Yes but I don't see a way around that. A lot of people are just now getting their stimulus from almost a year ago.

mickeyrat · February 2021

start your own fucking thread for that douche. garbage bickering accomplishing nothing.

PJPOWER · February 2021

mickeyrat said:

start your own fucking thread for that douche. garbage bickering accomplishing nothing.

Right, back to talking about the douche Joe Biden.

mrussel1 · February 2021

PJPOWER said:

mickeyrat said:

start your own fucking thread for that douche. garbage bickering accomplishing nothing.

Right, back to talking about the douche Joe Biden.

Hes twice the man as Trump, in every way. And it's not close.

PJPOWER · February 2021

mrussel1 said:

PJPOWER said:

mickeyrat said:

start your own fucking thread for that douche. garbage bickering accomplishing nothing.

Right, back to talking about the douche Joe Biden.

Hes twice the man as Trump, in every way. And it's not close.

Never said he wasn’t, but still a douche politician none the less.

Gern Blansten · February 2021

I can't get over how refreshing it is to not have that stupid fucking moron tweeting and pissing me off every day. Banned for life by twitter. Fucking beautiful.

mrussel1 · February 2021

PJPOWER said:

mrussel1 said:

PJPOWER said:

mickeyrat said:

start your own fucking thread for that douche. garbage bickering accomplishing nothing.

Right, back to talking about the douche Joe Biden.

Hes twice the man as Trump, in every way. And it's not close.

Never said he wasn’t, but still a douche politician none the less.

Ok. He's a politician, so he's a douche. That's a useful critic.

mickeyrat · February 2021

Joe Biden Donald Trump Coronavirus pandemic Impeachments

Biden hopes infrastructure can bridge partisan divide

By JOSH BOAK and MATTHEW DALY

Today

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden is hoping that launching an effort to build roads and bridges can help to unite Democrats and Republicans in a time of sharp partisan divisions.

Biden met with lawmakers from both parties at the White House to discuss infrastructure on Thursday, even as the Senate is holding impeachment proceedings against former President Donald Trump where partisan divisions are on full display.

“I’ve been around long enough," Biden said, "that infrastructure wasn’t a Republican or a Democratic issue.”

The president specifically mentioned the potential for improvement projects in the states of the senators attending the meeting, signaling that lawmakers might be willing to cooperate in order to make their voters' lives better.

Biden highlighted the need for repairs to “a lot of bridges in West Virginia.” Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, was among those in attendance. She later voiced her support for a “bipartisan surface transportation reauthorization bill that makes long-term investments in our nation’s roads and bridges.”

The president also referenced Route 9 in his home state of Delaware, which he shares with Democratic Sen. Tom Carper, the committee chairman, who was also in the Oval Office meeting Thursday and had discussed these issues with Biden last week.

“The American people desperately want us to bring our roads, trains and bridges out of the last century and into the future," Carper said after Thursday's meeting.

Carper pledged to work on a transportation bill that will focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions by cars and trucks and boosting electric cars. “I’m glad it’s at the top of the administration’s agenda.″

The current authorization bill for surface transportation expires in September, so “there is no time to waste,″ Carper said, adding that he expects bipartisan support for the reauthorization bill in the Senate.

Also at the meeting were Vice President Kamala Harris, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg virtually, Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma and Democratic Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland.

Inhofe later told reporters that the meeting with Biden was "very good, very good.

“One reason is that I’ve known the president forever, and we’ve worked on highway bills before," Inhofe said. “The main thing that I want to be careful on is when you’re working on infrastructure that’s high dollar stuff.”

Biden said there are “a number of things out there that the American people are looking for us to step up" and do. During the presidential campaign, Biden committed to deploying $2 trillion on infrastructure and clean energy investments over four years.

His campaign pledged that millions of jobs would flow from repairing roads, building electric vehicle charging stations, weatherizing buildings, improving access to public transit and updating the U.S. power grid to be carbon-pollution free by 2035.

Since the pandemic began in February 2020, the United States has lost 256,000 construction jobs, lowering total construction employment to 7.4 million. Still, total construction spending has increased slightly to an annualized rate of $1.49 trillion, according to the Census Bureau. About a quarter of that spending comes from the federal, state and local governments.

Both the Obama and Trump administrations famously promised to invest in infrastructure, only never fully to deliver. The term “infrastructure week” became something of a joke during the Trump era, when it was associated with a policy push that was meant to take public attention away from controversial remarks or actions by the president.

Biden has been warned that his push for $1.9 trillion in coronavirus relief might hamper a later push to get bipartisan support for infrastructure improvements. In a speech earlier this month to the Senate, Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, said a party-line vote on financial relief would “poison the well” for infrastructure.

“I think it’s going to be harder if we start off on the wrong foot, if we start off in a purely partisan way,” Portman said.

The Kinder Institute for Urban Research at Rice University released an analysis Wednesday about the infrastructure needs of 134 cities. Its survey found cities prioritizing transportation and water and climate projects, but also projects to address the fallout from the pandemic such as broadband access, emergency response and health facilities, and public transit for essential workers.

“Mayors and other local regional leaders around the country are very much in alignment with what President Biden has talked about, especially with climate change," said Bill Fulton, director of the institute. "But it’s clear that the pandemic has changed infrastructure needs.”

___

Boak reported from Baltimore.

PJPOWER · February 2021

mrussel1 said:

PJPOWER said:

mrussel1 said:

PJPOWER said:

mickeyrat said:

start your own fucking thread for that douche. garbage bickering accomplishing nothing.

Right, back to talking about the douche Joe Biden.

Hes twice the man as Trump, in every way. And it's not close.

Never said he wasn’t, but still a douche politician none the less.

Ok. He's a politician, so he's a douche. That's a useful critic.

As useful as being “twice the man”? Is Kamala also twice the man? Biden is a fading puppet, nothing more.

mrussel1 · February 2021

PJPOWER said:

mrussel1 said:

PJPOWER said:

mrussel1 said:

PJPOWER said:

mickeyrat said:

start your own fucking thread for that douche. garbage bickering accomplishing nothing.

Right, back to talking about the douche Joe Biden.

Hes twice the man as Trump, in every way. And it's not close.

Never said he wasn’t, but still a douche politician none the less.

Ok. He's a politician, so he's a douche. That's a useful critic.

As useful as being “twice the man”? Is Kamala also twice the man? Biden is a fading puppet, nothing more.

Your sexist comments aside, I don't have a full opinion formed on Harris. I've been following Biden for years and have met him. He was neighbor to a business partner of mine, and I also talked to him on the train. Trump is a scum bag. That's plain to see. Calling someone a douche because they're an elected official is stupid and lazy, but stay the course.

mace1229 · February 2021

The main argument for a $16 minimum wage is people can’t live off less than that, it is what you need to survive. What you do with that money 6 years from now (college) is not a concern when you’re talking about what people need to live. They call it a livable wage, not college funding wage. Age seems like the easiest way to differentiate that. I don’t know of any 14 year olds who are the head of a household and raising kids on their own. If that were the case, exceptions could be made.
But the law does differentiate in the types of jobs they have and the hours they work. In my state, under 16 can only work 3 hour shifts. So they can tell employees to work them 1/3 of the rest, but can’t tell them to pay them any different?

Bottom line if you have a 7th grade education, never worked before and can only work select hours you are worth less to your employer than the average 18 year old with a high school diploma and are available to work 40 hours a week. They are already considered unequal employees by the law. And they should be, they are kids. Otherwise why bother with the hassle of hiring someone you have to try to schedule 3 hour shifts for, has never had to problem solve or taken pre-algebra?
If you don’t like idea of basing it on age, then base it on education or work experience. That seems more difficult, but there are a lot of free programs out there to help people get their GED. Otherwise I, and a large portion of the country, will never agree with a livable minimum wage if we don’t figure out a way to mandate it with exemptions for kids not needing a livable wage to support a head of a house. I do support the 19 year old single mom getting a livable wage, not the 14 year old at their first job.

HughFreakingDillon · February 2021

mace1229 said:

oftenreading said:

mace1229 said:

static111 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

CBO releases analysis on $15 min wage by 2025. It's a mixed bag. Helps some but net job loss.

Increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025, from the current $7.25 an hour level, as President Biden has called for, would cut employment by 1.4 million and reduce the number of Americans below the poverty line by 900,000, according to a study released by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office on Monday.
The cumulative federal budget deficit from 2021 to 2031 would increase by $54 billion if a $15 federal minimum was enacted because higher prices for goods and services would contribute to an increase in federal spending, the report found. Government spending on nutrition supplements would fall, but that would be offset by increased spending on Social Security benefits, unemployment benefits and health-care programs, the CBO said.
The report found enrollment in Medicaid, health care for low-income Americans, would fall because many workers would earn more, but program costs would increase to higher prices for medical services.
Economic output would be reduced slightly, primary because of decreased employment, CBO said.

I have yet to hear anyone beside myself suggest a more flexible wage schedule.   My plan would be to increase minimum wage to a living wage for full-time workers and base that wage on cost of living according to where one lives (cost of living varies a great deal in varying parts of the country). I would also give exceptions to minimum wage for students or elderly wanting a part-time job to make a little extra money or have something to do. Why should a small business owner pay minimum wages to a senior who wants a part time job to supplement his or her retirement or social security or just to have something to give him or herself a sense of purpose? Or to a student who just wants some work experience and some money to buy records and lattes? I mean, seriously, it's very hard to keep a small business running as it it without having to deal with increased payroll given to people working who do not need a living wage.

Why is this issue being looked at in black and white? Why is there so little common sense being applied to this issue? No wonder people get frustrated with government.

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

CBO releases analysis on $15 min wage by 2025. It's a mixed bag. Helps some but net job loss.

Increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025, from the current $7.25 an hour level, as President Biden has called for, would cut employment by 1.4 million and reduce the number of Americans below the poverty line by 900,000, according to a study released by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office on Monday.
The cumulative federal budget deficit from 2021 to 2031 would increase by $54 billion if a $15 federal minimum was enacted because higher prices for goods and services would contribute to an increase in federal spending, the report found. Government spending on nutrition supplements would fall, but that would be offset by increased spending on Social Security benefits, unemployment benefits and health-care programs, the CBO said.
The report found enrollment in Medicaid, health care for low-income Americans, would fall because many workers would earn more, but program costs would increase to higher prices for medical services.
Economic output would be reduced slightly, primary because of decreased employment, CBO said.

I have yet to hear anyone beside myself suggest a more flexible wage schedule.   My plan would be to increase minimum wage to a living wage for full-time workers and base that wage on cost of living according to where one lives (cost of living varies a great deal in varying parts of the country). I would also give exceptions to minimum wage for students or elderly wanting a part-time job to make a little extra money or have something to do. Why should a small business owner pay minimum wages to a senior who wants a part time job to supplement his or her retirement or social security or just to have something to give him or herself a sense of purpose? Or to a student who just wants some work experience and some money to buy records and lattes? I mean, seriously, it's very hard to keep a small business running as it it without having to deal with increased payroll given to people working who do not need a living wage.

Why is this issue being looked at in black and white? Why is there so little common sense being applied to this issue? No wonder people get frustrated with government.

I'm a fan of indexed Min Wage. Maybe something like 4 or 5 tiers based on the cost of living in an area. You can't really do it at the state level because rural to urban is so different. But it's a hard thing to do, it's hard to build and hard to manage. I know there is a counter from Manchin out there for $11. That's better than we have today and maybe not as disruptive as a huge jump to $15.

I would be if it was more complex to include age or something else too. I'm not for a national "liveable wage" even if it is tiered. And nearly the entire argument against it is not everyone needs a liveable wage. But I never see that addressed. I have 8th graders asking me for work permits, do they need a salary or hourly wage that is enough to support a family? There is nothing wrong with paying a 14 year old with a 7th or 8th grade education, who is at their first job with little to no experience, half of what would be considered a liveable wage for an adult. To increase the minimum wage they should expand the student learner wage program that increase those exempt from a minimum wage.

Dear god this would be abused so bad. No one would have jobs but seniors and students of a certain age that “don’t need” a livable wage. Not to mention how stupid it would be if two people are doing the same job, cashier, line cook etc and one guy is 32 and makes 15 but the other guy is 65 or 18 and only makes 10 or whatever someone else decides is enough. Holy moly that’s why we created minimum wage laws and unions in the first place, to not abuse the labor force...

Haven't checked this thread in a few days, we've probably moved on. But there obviously would be abuse, that's why more regulations would be needed. Like only allowing a certain number of minors to be employed. A McDonald's shouldn't be run by a bunch of 14 year olds anyway. I don't see why it would be that difficult to stipulate that for every 10 employees, only 2 can be exempt from minimum wage (such as under 18). That solves your problem.

But paying people on age already happens to some extent. Most places pay more if you have more experience and more education. So a 25 year old working the same job as a 14 year old will almost always be making more, even if they both are cashiers. You have 2 teachers teaching the same class at the same school, one is 22 and making 45k and the other 55 and making 90k. Same job. Yes, theoretically the older teacher with more experience is going to be a better teacher, but wouldn't also the 32 year old over the 14 year old at pretty much any job too? I would just never agree that a 14 year old at their first job needs $16/hr.

Paying more due to experience and education is very different than paying more for age. If your hypothetical 55 year old teacher was at his or her first teaching job, then they get the starting salary, correct?

And most teens that I know who are working are saving up to pay university/college tuition fees, so your thoughts on whether they “need” the job or not are skewed.

Yes, if that 55 year old was a first year teacher they’d be paid first year rates. But your argument was that a 14 year old and a 32 year old at the same job should get the same pay. I’m assuming that 32 year old has more education and more experience than the 14 year old. If a 32 year old has never had a job and has less than a 7th grade education, he’s probably special needs and there are programs for that. Otherwise he does deserve more pay. With 18 more years of life he’s probably picked up life skills, education, problem solving skills, etc that a 14 year old does not have. He’s worth more.
A 14 year old is worth less. Less education, no work experience. Limited hours he can work. Depends on his mom for rides. And $8/hr is still a lot for most 14 year olds who’d otherwise be playing fortnight. If I had to pay them equal I’d never hire the 14 year old.

so should a 32 year old delivering flyers to subsidize their income get more money than a 12 year old because he brings more to the table for.....delivering flyers?

mace1229 · February 2021

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

oftenreading said:

mace1229 said:

static111 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

CBO releases analysis on $15 min wage by 2025. It's a mixed bag. Helps some but net job loss.

Increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025, from the current $7.25 an hour level, as President Biden has called for, would cut employment by 1.4 million and reduce the number of Americans below the poverty line by 900,000, according to a study released by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office on Monday.
The cumulative federal budget deficit from 2021 to 2031 would increase by $54 billion if a $15 federal minimum was enacted because higher prices for goods and services would contribute to an increase in federal spending, the report found. Government spending on nutrition supplements would fall, but that would be offset by increased spending on Social Security benefits, unemployment benefits and health-care programs, the CBO said.
The report found enrollment in Medicaid, health care for low-income Americans, would fall because many workers would earn more, but program costs would increase to higher prices for medical services.
Economic output would be reduced slightly, primary because of decreased employment, CBO said.

I have yet to hear anyone beside myself suggest a more flexible wage schedule.   My plan would be to increase minimum wage to a living wage for full-time workers and base that wage on cost of living according to where one lives (cost of living varies a great deal in varying parts of the country). I would also give exceptions to minimum wage for students or elderly wanting a part-time job to make a little extra money or have something to do. Why should a small business owner pay minimum wages to a senior who wants a part time job to supplement his or her retirement or social security or just to have something to give him or herself a sense of purpose? Or to a student who just wants some work experience and some money to buy records and lattes? I mean, seriously, it's very hard to keep a small business running as it it without having to deal with increased payroll given to people working who do not need a living wage.

Why is this issue being looked at in black and white? Why is there so little common sense being applied to this issue? No wonder people get frustrated with government.

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

CBO releases analysis on $15 min wage by 2025. It's a mixed bag. Helps some but net job loss.

Increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025, from the current $7.25 an hour level, as President Biden has called for, would cut employment by 1.4 million and reduce the number of Americans below the poverty line by 900,000, according to a study released by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office on Monday.
The cumulative federal budget deficit from 2021 to 2031 would increase by $54 billion if a $15 federal minimum was enacted because higher prices for goods and services would contribute to an increase in federal spending, the report found. Government spending on nutrition supplements would fall, but that would be offset by increased spending on Social Security benefits, unemployment benefits and health-care programs, the CBO said.
The report found enrollment in Medicaid, health care for low-income Americans, would fall because many workers would earn more, but program costs would increase to higher prices for medical services.
Economic output would be reduced slightly, primary because of decreased employment, CBO said.

I have yet to hear anyone beside myself suggest a more flexible wage schedule.   My plan would be to increase minimum wage to a living wage for full-time workers and base that wage on cost of living according to where one lives (cost of living varies a great deal in varying parts of the country). I would also give exceptions to minimum wage for students or elderly wanting a part-time job to make a little extra money or have something to do. Why should a small business owner pay minimum wages to a senior who wants a part time job to supplement his or her retirement or social security or just to have something to give him or herself a sense of purpose? Or to a student who just wants some work experience and some money to buy records and lattes? I mean, seriously, it's very hard to keep a small business running as it it without having to deal with increased payroll given to people working who do not need a living wage.

Why is this issue being looked at in black and white? Why is there so little common sense being applied to this issue? No wonder people get frustrated with government.

I'm a fan of indexed Min Wage. Maybe something like 4 or 5 tiers based on the cost of living in an area. You can't really do it at the state level because rural to urban is so different. But it's a hard thing to do, it's hard to build and hard to manage. I know there is a counter from Manchin out there for $11. That's better than we have today and maybe not as disruptive as a huge jump to $15.

I would be if it was more complex to include age or something else too. I'm not for a national "liveable wage" even if it is tiered. And nearly the entire argument against it is not everyone needs a liveable wage. But I never see that addressed. I have 8th graders asking me for work permits, do they need a salary or hourly wage that is enough to support a family? There is nothing wrong with paying a 14 year old with a 7th or 8th grade education, who is at their first job with little to no experience, half of what would be considered a liveable wage for an adult. To increase the minimum wage they should expand the student learner wage program that increase those exempt from a minimum wage.

Dear god this would be abused so bad. No one would have jobs but seniors and students of a certain age that “don’t need” a livable wage. Not to mention how stupid it would be if two people are doing the same job, cashier, line cook etc and one guy is 32 and makes 15 but the other guy is 65 or 18 and only makes 10 or whatever someone else decides is enough. Holy moly that’s why we created minimum wage laws and unions in the first place, to not abuse the labor force...

Haven't checked this thread in a few days, we've probably moved on. But there obviously would be abuse, that's why more regulations would be needed. Like only allowing a certain number of minors to be employed. A McDonald's shouldn't be run by a bunch of 14 year olds anyway. I don't see why it would be that difficult to stipulate that for every 10 employees, only 2 can be exempt from minimum wage (such as under 18). That solves your problem.

But paying people on age already happens to some extent. Most places pay more if you have more experience and more education. So a 25 year old working the same job as a 14 year old will almost always be making more, even if they both are cashiers. You have 2 teachers teaching the same class at the same school, one is 22 and making 45k and the other 55 and making 90k. Same job. Yes, theoretically the older teacher with more experience is going to be a better teacher, but wouldn't also the 32 year old over the 14 year old at pretty much any job too? I would just never agree that a 14 year old at their first job needs $16/hr.

Paying more due to experience and education is very different than paying more for age. If your hypothetical 55 year old teacher was at his or her first teaching job, then they get the starting salary, correct?

And most teens that I know who are working are saving up to pay university/college tuition fees, so your thoughts on whether they “need” the job or not are skewed.

Yes, if that 55 year old was a first year teacher they’d be paid first year rates. But your argument was that a 14 year old and a 32 year old at the same job should get the same pay. I’m assuming that 32 year old has more education and more experience than the 14 year old. If a 32 year old has never had a job and has less than a 7th grade education, he’s probably special needs and there are programs for that. Otherwise he does deserve more pay. With 18 more years of life he’s probably picked up life skills, education, problem solving skills, etc that a 14 year old does not have. He’s worth more.
A 14 year old is worth less. Less education, no work experience. Limited hours he can work. Depends on his mom for rides. And $8/hr is still a lot for most 14 year olds who’d otherwise be playing fortnight. If I had to pay them equal I’d never hire the 14 year old.

so should a 32 year old delivering flyers to subsidize their income get more money than a 12 year old because he brings more to the table for.....delivering flyers?

I don't think you can legally pay a 12 year old. And there's a reason why you don't see many 32 year olds delivering flyers. I am not for an across the board minimum wage of $16, or whatever is deemed livable in your area. A 12 or 14 year old doesn't need to be supporting the family. One way to differentiate wage is by age. Another would be by job. I'm okay with either. If a 12 year old can do a job equally as well as a 32 year old because the job requires no skills, no labor, no experience, a job that a poorly trained monkey can do, then let the 14 year old have that job and pay him $8. But that hasn't worked out I guess.
But even with your example, I would say a 32 year old has a better chance of doing the job better. If you were paying someone to pass out flyers and you had all sorts of applicants because you are now mandated to pay everyone $16/hr, and it came down to a 12 year old who can only cover half as much ground, can only work 3 hours a day, needs to be home before the street lights come on, has to work around his school schedule and no experience on how to manage time with work, school and friends, no experience with dealing with angry customers, you're responsible for him walking around on your dime, never had to read a map before to figure out where to deliver said flyers. Or a 32 year old who has a car, can cover a lot more deliveries in the same time, can work 12 hour days, doesn't need permission from mom on how late to stay out, 20 more years with life experience dealing with crazies in the world while he passes things out randomly, you don't fear for his safety with the homeless wondering around because he's not 12. You think those 2 are equal? I know who I'd hire, assuming no criminal record, etc.
There's a reason they don't hire young boys to deliver papers anymore. They drive around in a car and throw them out the window onto driveways. Because an 18 year old with a car is worth more than a 12 year old on a bike.

HughFreakingDillon · February 2021

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

oftenreading said:

mace1229 said:

static111 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

CBO releases analysis on $15 min wage by 2025. It's a mixed bag. Helps some but net job loss.

Increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025, from the current $7.25 an hour level, as President Biden has called for, would cut employment by 1.4 million and reduce the number of Americans below the poverty line by 900,000, according to a study released by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office on Monday.
The cumulative federal budget deficit from 2021 to 2031 would increase by $54 billion if a $15 federal minimum was enacted because higher prices for goods and services would contribute to an increase in federal spending, the report found. Government spending on nutrition supplements would fall, but that would be offset by increased spending on Social Security benefits, unemployment benefits and health-care programs, the CBO said.
The report found enrollment in Medicaid, health care for low-income Americans, would fall because many workers would earn more, but program costs would increase to higher prices for medical services.
Economic output would be reduced slightly, primary because of decreased employment, CBO said.

I have yet to hear anyone beside myself suggest a more flexible wage schedule.   My plan would be to increase minimum wage to a living wage for full-time workers and base that wage on cost of living according to where one lives (cost of living varies a great deal in varying parts of the country). I would also give exceptions to minimum wage for students or elderly wanting a part-time job to make a little extra money or have something to do. Why should a small business owner pay minimum wages to a senior who wants a part time job to supplement his or her retirement or social security or just to have something to give him or herself a sense of purpose? Or to a student who just wants some work experience and some money to buy records and lattes? I mean, seriously, it's very hard to keep a small business running as it it without having to deal with increased payroll given to people working who do not need a living wage.

Why is this issue being looked at in black and white? Why is there so little common sense being applied to this issue? No wonder people get frustrated with government.

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

CBO releases analysis on $15 min wage by 2025. It's a mixed bag. Helps some but net job loss.

Increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025, from the current $7.25 an hour level, as President Biden has called for, would cut employment by 1.4 million and reduce the number of Americans below the poverty line by 900,000, according to a study released by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office on Monday.
The cumulative federal budget deficit from 2021 to 2031 would increase by $54 billion if a $15 federal minimum was enacted because higher prices for goods and services would contribute to an increase in federal spending, the report found. Government spending on nutrition supplements would fall, but that would be offset by increased spending on Social Security benefits, unemployment benefits and health-care programs, the CBO said.
The report found enrollment in Medicaid, health care for low-income Americans, would fall because many workers would earn more, but program costs would increase to higher prices for medical services.
Economic output would be reduced slightly, primary because of decreased employment, CBO said.

I have yet to hear anyone beside myself suggest a more flexible wage schedule.   My plan would be to increase minimum wage to a living wage for full-time workers and base that wage on cost of living according to where one lives (cost of living varies a great deal in varying parts of the country). I would also give exceptions to minimum wage for students or elderly wanting a part-time job to make a little extra money or have something to do. Why should a small business owner pay minimum wages to a senior who wants a part time job to supplement his or her retirement or social security or just to have something to give him or herself a sense of purpose? Or to a student who just wants some work experience and some money to buy records and lattes? I mean, seriously, it's very hard to keep a small business running as it it without having to deal with increased payroll given to people working who do not need a living wage.

Why is this issue being looked at in black and white? Why is there so little common sense being applied to this issue? No wonder people get frustrated with government.

I'm a fan of indexed Min Wage. Maybe something like 4 or 5 tiers based on the cost of living in an area. You can't really do it at the state level because rural to urban is so different. But it's a hard thing to do, it's hard to build and hard to manage. I know there is a counter from Manchin out there for $11. That's better than we have today and maybe not as disruptive as a huge jump to $15.

I would be if it was more complex to include age or something else too. I'm not for a national "liveable wage" even if it is tiered. And nearly the entire argument against it is not everyone needs a liveable wage. But I never see that addressed. I have 8th graders asking me for work permits, do they need a salary or hourly wage that is enough to support a family? There is nothing wrong with paying a 14 year old with a 7th or 8th grade education, who is at their first job with little to no experience, half of what would be considered a liveable wage for an adult. To increase the minimum wage they should expand the student learner wage program that increase those exempt from a minimum wage.

Dear god this would be abused so bad. No one would have jobs but seniors and students of a certain age that “don’t need” a livable wage. Not to mention how stupid it would be if two people are doing the same job, cashier, line cook etc and one guy is 32 and makes 15 but the other guy is 65 or 18 and only makes 10 or whatever someone else decides is enough. Holy moly that’s why we created minimum wage laws and unions in the first place, to not abuse the labor force...

Haven't checked this thread in a few days, we've probably moved on. But there obviously would be abuse, that's why more regulations would be needed. Like only allowing a certain number of minors to be employed. A McDonald's shouldn't be run by a bunch of 14 year olds anyway. I don't see why it would be that difficult to stipulate that for every 10 employees, only 2 can be exempt from minimum wage (such as under 18). That solves your problem.

But paying people on age already happens to some extent. Most places pay more if you have more experience and more education. So a 25 year old working the same job as a 14 year old will almost always be making more, even if they both are cashiers. You have 2 teachers teaching the same class at the same school, one is 22 and making 45k and the other 55 and making 90k. Same job. Yes, theoretically the older teacher with more experience is going to be a better teacher, but wouldn't also the 32 year old over the 14 year old at pretty much any job too? I would just never agree that a 14 year old at their first job needs $16/hr.

Paying more due to experience and education is very different than paying more for age. If your hypothetical 55 year old teacher was at his or her first teaching job, then they get the starting salary, correct?

And most teens that I know who are working are saving up to pay university/college tuition fees, so your thoughts on whether they “need” the job or not are skewed.

Yes, if that 55 year old was a first year teacher they’d be paid first year rates. But your argument was that a 14 year old and a 32 year old at the same job should get the same pay. I’m assuming that 32 year old has more education and more experience than the 14 year old. If a 32 year old has never had a job and has less than a 7th grade education, he’s probably special needs and there are programs for that. Otherwise he does deserve more pay. With 18 more years of life he’s probably picked up life skills, education, problem solving skills, etc that a 14 year old does not have. He’s worth more.
A 14 year old is worth less. Less education, no work experience. Limited hours he can work. Depends on his mom for rides. And $8/hr is still a lot for most 14 year olds who’d otherwise be playing fortnight. If I had to pay them equal I’d never hire the 14 year old.

so should a 32 year old delivering flyers to subsidize their income get more money than a 12 year old because he brings more to the table for.....delivering flyers?

I don't think you can legally pay a 12 year old. And there's a reason why you don't see many 32 year olds delivering flyers. I am not for an across the board minimum wage of $16, or whatever is deemed livable in your area. A 12 or 14 year old doesn't need to be supporting the family. One way to differentiate wage is by age. Another would be by job. I'm okay with either. If a 12 year old can do a job equally as well as a 32 year old because the job requires no skills, no labor, no experience, a job that a poorly trained monkey can do, then let the 14 year old have that job and pay him $8. But that hasn't worked out I guess.
But even with your example, I would say a 32 year old has a better chance of doing the job better. If you were paying someone to pass out flyers and you had all sorts of applicants because you are now mandated to pay everyone $16/hr, and it came down to a 12 year old who can only cover half as much ground, can only work 3 hours a day, needs to be home before the street lights come on, has to work around his school schedule and no experience on how to manage time with work, school and friends, no experience with dealing with angry customers, you're responsible for him walking around on your dime, never had to read a map before to figure out where to deliver said flyers. Or a 32 year old who has a car, can cover a lot more deliveries in the same time, can work 12 hour days, doesn't need permission from mom on how late to stay out, 20 more years with life experience dealing with crazies in the world while he passes things out randomly, you don't fear for his safety with the homeless wondering around because he's not 12. You think those 2 are equal? I know who I'd hire, assuming no criminal record, etc.
There's a reason they don't hire young boys to deliver papers anymore. They drive around in a car and throw them out the window onto driveways. Because an 18 year old with a car is worth more than a 12 year old on a bike.

that was a really long post basically saying you are pro-age discrimination. the flyer company can easily choose the 32 year old based on the things above, but you can't choose to pay one employee more than another simply because their age is different. You can make the terms of the job the things you outlined. But you can't just arbitrarily decide who gets more based on their age.

I'm pretty sure you're familiar with the term "slippery slope"?

based on a generalization, one could argue that then would make it ok to pay mexican immigrants more on a job site than a white guy because they are "known" to be harder working, even without first seeing him on the job.

mickeyrat · February 2021

pssst. $15......

tbergs · February 2021

I really don't understand the issue with paying a 16 year old the same as a 32 year old if the work is the same and they started at the same time, no matter what minimum wage is set at. There are already other labor laws in place about hours of work, benefits and leave time that would limit the 16 year old more than the 32 year old anyway. When I was 16 I definitely worked harder for my 4.75 an hour than the mid 20's supervisor I had at the grocery store. Sure, not always the case, but that isn't restricted to age.

Anyway, we've beaten this to death. I think we need to address it, but it probably won't happen in this package.

Bentleyspop · February 2021

This is how you President....

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1360238441582260236?s=19

mrussel1 · February 2021

Bentleyspop said:

This is how you President....

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1360238441582260236?s=19

Look at him out there, in jeans, with his wife and dogs. What a commie. He must hate America. Douche.

HughFreakingDillon · February 2021

Bentleyspop said:

This is how you President....

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1360238441582260236?s=19

WHAT. A. DIFFERENCE.

just wait. I'm going to smoke a doob tonight and put on tucker and see what that asshole has to say about this. You just know him and/or hannity are going to claim the bidens have desecrated the grounds of the white house with tacky elementary school decorations.

The Juggler · February 2021

Gern Blansten said:

I can't get over how refreshing it is to not have that stupid fucking moron tweeting and pissing me off every day. Banned for life by twitter. Fucking beautiful.

It is a beautiful thing, isn't it?

#46 President Joe Biden

Comments

Categories