That assumes that we know as much physics as they do. They might be using some medium to communicate that we haven't even discovered yet.
Certainly possible. But then, who of us could receive it?
Probably all of us would receive it.
After all, they would understand our limitations, by virtue of examining our transmissions, and adjust their
transmissions accordingly.
You're assuming they would want to talk to us at all. Perhaps we are too backward to even bother saying hello to. Or perhaps they are preparing a sneak attack. Granted, we have little that could harm an advanced race, but why give us a couple of decades to prepare. If they've been watching us, they would certainly have figured out that humans are pretty good at finding creative ways of killing things when threatened.
Actually, they wouldn't need to be all that much more advanced than we are militarily. We sit at the bottom of a gravity well. As Heinlein suggested in The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, they could just "throw rocks" at us.
Not very high tech, is it?
Getting here is a completely different story, but the thought that extraterrestrial intelligence would need to be enormously more technologically advanced than we are is just not true. We (in cosmological terms) aren't so far off from creating devices that can autonomously manufacture machines to mine the moon or asteroids for rocks that can be set on intersecting trajectories with the Earth. Presumably, any intelligence that can build an autonomous probe capable of reaching us, could include that sort of technology in the probe. Berserkers are an (albeit fictional) example.
Minimum wage is not supposed to be a living wage because there are supposed to be entry level jobs for people who are starting out, not living on their own. If someone is qualified to responsibly manage having their own apartment, etc., then they're quite overqualified to tear movie tickets.
Actually, according to one of the sponsors (George Miller) of the 2007 minimum wage bill, that's not true. In fact, he said:
Congress has a moral duty to raise the minimum wage. Churches, synagogues, and other faith groups are calling on Congress to support the Fair Minimum Wage Act. In this country, an average CEO earns more before lunchtime in one day than a minimum wage worker earns all year. This is a moral outrage in the richest country on earth. With the costs of health insurance, gasoline, and college tuition increasing, it is important, now more than ever, that we raise the minimum wage so that these hard working Americans are able to meet basic human needs.
Raising the minimum wage is not only the right thing to do, it is also economically prudent. Increasing the minimum wage will help boost the economy as a whole, putting more money into the hands of those people who need it and will spend it--indeed, spend it on basic necessities. Last year, some 665 economists, including several Nobel Laureates, signed a statement in support of raising the minimum wage. As they explained, the ``minimum wage helps to equalize the imbalance in bargaining power that low-wage workers face in the labor market. The minimum wage is also an important tool in fighting poverty.''
Raising the minimum wage is critical to fighting the middle class squeeze in this country. America's middle class is this country's economic backbone. It is what makes us strong. Yet the middle class is shrinking. Since 2001, the number of Americans living in poverty has increased by 5.4 million, to 37 million. More than one in six American children now lives in poverty. The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 is an important first step for this new Congress in its efforts to stand up for the middle class and to stem the squeeze.[Emphasis added]
Well we start by you volunteering to pay first, then we begin deducting an additional 25% of your salary to donate to a family in need,and lastly we start doing the same thing with others that willingly volunteer their earnings to help the needy.
Thank you sir for your assistance in these difficult times.
Absolutely. In fact, the needy can have every penny of my salary over the past seven months. I assume you're next, eh?
But yes, restaurant wait staff often don't even get the minimum wage. Disgusting, isn't it?
They do in the US. If their wages plus tips ends up being less than the minimum wage, federal law requires that their employer pay the difference, so that they end up getting the minimum wage.
I was unaware that was required. Thanks! However, $7.25/hour is still not a living wage.
There are three types of lies:
1. Lies
2. Damn lies
3. Statistics
In a poverty-stricken community of 1000 people where 999 people earn $10000 per year, one person earns $100000000. That results in an average (mean) income of $109900 per person, which is not at all representative of the poverty. The problem with economic statistics is that they are painfully skewed by the top incomes.
Which is why the *median* is used and not the mean. Your folksy homilies are quaint, but unpersuasive. I suggest you actually try to understand this stuff. I'll counter your folksy homily with one of my own. "'tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt." Tag. You're it.
Someone working full-time should be able to at least support themselves.
Sez who?
I mean, it'd be nice if that were true. Heck, it's be nicer if I could work for only 1 hour a week and support myself.
But there's no guarantee of any of that.
Says me. And, IMHO, anyone who wants a society that is prosperous, functional and provides equal *opportunity* for it's citizens. Just throwing up your hands and saying "oh well, things don't work like that. I guess it sucks to be you." is intellectually lazy and smacks of narcissism.
Yes, I saw that link, but I was trying to illustrate the average income and how it isn't representative of the average person. I know plenty of married households where husband and wife (combined) earn less than $40k\year. When I worked as a software tester at Deere, about half of the engineers I knew didn't even make $70k.
I'm sorry. I'm confused. The term "average" can mean any of three different "measures of central tendency." The mean (add up all the data points and divide by the number of points), the mode (the data point occurring most frequently) and the median (a number where half of the data points lie above and half the data points lie below it).
The "average" person? When you say "average," which "measure of central tendency" are you referring to?
I'm glad you have a diverse circle, but the people you know don't represent the at-large population. Please explain what that has to do with anything other than your anecdotal experience.
*Median* income (which is almost always the measure used in economic analysis) is the income (based on gathered data and analysis) at which half the population falls below and half the population falls above.
Extremely few children in this country lives in true poverty. With public assistance, most "poor" live a life of luxury many in the truly poor parts of the world can only dream of having.
The idea that to allow everyone to get ahead, we need to bring down the top to meet the bottom is pure lunacy.
Any individual in our country with the desire to improve their station can do so. The idea that somehow the man is holding everyone down is a creation of government, left and right, to subjugate the populace. Sadly many have fallen for this hook, line, and sinker.
Cell phones, internet, and cable TV are luxury wants, not needs. Eating meals at a restaurant (even McDonalds) is a luxury.
The reality is that you'll never be able to fix stupid. You simply can't protect people from themselves.
The reality is much more nuanced and complex. I suggest you educate yourself. I doubt you will, and so I pity you the illusions you've bought into. Feel free to disagree and even say mean things about me. I don't mind.
The Utilitarian concept that all ideas should be expressed, examined and debated is an excellent one. It allows us to weigh all the ideas against each other as well as against the realities of our existence. In the end, the best ideas (sadly, often in retrospect) will be seen for what they are.
In the meantime, far be it for me to try to disabuse you of your world view. You need to decide for yourself.
I take care of myself by eating reasonably well, exercising, and visited the dental wing of a local college when I needed work. I was in a car accident when I was 20. My car insurance payed for the hospital expenses and work I missed. Clothes, housewares, appliances? Thrift stores and rummage sales. By the time I was 28, I had over $20k in savings. I guess I'm fortunate with regard to my student loans. My first degree was an AAS from a state school that I paid for as I attended, and my BA was at a private college (I know now, THAT was stupid), but I graduated with only about $55k in loans.
For about the last year, I've been making around $20\hr, and I still shop at thrift stores for almost all of my goods.
I'm not insisting that everyone can live like I do, but I'm telling you it's possible.
Good for you. I guess it's a good thing you never had anything catastrophic happen to you. I know what's possible. I've done very well for myself too, by working hard and trying not to be wasteful of resources.
I'm not pointing a finger at you. I'm pointing out that things are getting worse. Certainly, times have changed, but we used to encourage (through economic policy) a less stratified society with more social mobility. As the oligarchs have gained power, our society is becoming less free, less tolerant and opportunity is becoming more and more restricted.
I'm not advocating a "Harrison Bergeron" style society, but I am outraged and sickened by the efforts of the wealthiest and most powerful among us to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else.
We should try to make our society better in terms of opportunity and quality of life for all of us. That's my point.
I don't have the statistics handy, but last year I crunched some numbers to figure out estimates of the total working population. If the average income per person in 2012 was just shy of $43k (http://bber.unm.edu/econ/us-pci.htm), that's about $13.4 trillion (using the population numbers from http://quickfacts.census.gov/q...). Assuming everyone who works is working full-time or better (60% of the population? That's about 188.3 million people), we have an average income of $71155 per person. Of course, these are fuzzy numbers that I put together in just a couple minutes.
I included a link to the data in my post. No "back of the napkin" calculations necessary. Here's the link again.
Does this smell anything like the platform that our current president ran on, twice?
We don't need to pay more in taxes, we need to stop spending so much on things like war, unnecessary civil developments (Silent railroad crossings?), corporate welfare, politician pensions, etc. You're addressing a symptom of the problem, not the root: government spending and thieving to support private interests that are funneled through government spending.
Yes, there is a lot of waste in government. Especially on the military side. And corporate welfare and all kinds of other things. Government spending is absolutely an issue. Creating a fairer tax code would help too. Also, having economic and tax policies that encourage reinvestment in our society, its infrastructure and instruments of personal advancement (education, fairer employer/employee interactions, health care, child care, etc., etc., etc.) would be extremely helpful, IMHO.
The Democratic party and the Republican party are completely under the control of our oligarchs. Wealth and income inequality, the limiting of social mobility (through poor education, the growth of the prison population, destruction of full-time jobs, etc., etc., etc.), the rise of the surveillance (both government, and more troubling, corporate) society and the huge lies being told and believed about who benefits are all consequences of this.
The Obama administration is doing the same things the Bush administration did. The House and Senate (regardless of party) are just as corrupt and broken. Just because the Democrats sometimes *talk* about social justice and equality of opportunity, doesn't mean they're actually doing anything about it. The political theater of the "left" and "right" (if you really look at the actual, not the stated, policies of both "sides" we're not really very far apart) sets us against each other while the oligarchs bleed us. It's really sad.
Massive government spending is just another symptom. The root of the problem is that our government is beholden to the monied interests. They aren't going to loosen their grip unless we force them to do so. I wish I knew how to do that.
Granted, I live in a smaller city, but Minneapolis is about the same cost, unless you need to go a great distance for work. Just outside of DC is also about the same. A nicer home, car, and children are not necessities. As an adult, I spent 10 years working for less than $10\hr. A large number of people I know make less than $10\hr. In fact, I made less than $8\hr until I was 26, and I was still able to live rather comfortably because I didn't waste money on things that I didn't need.
Does this mean that I think things are fine? No, I agree that income disparity is a horrible problem in a country where the
"average" income is $75k\year, but very few of us know anyone who makes that much money.
No. I won't "get off my soapbox." Don't want to listen to me? Fine. But I suggest you educate yourself as to the facts. You're thinking, "well, I did it so everyone else's circumstances must be the same. If they can't hack it, they must be stupid or lazy." Think about what you're saying.
So I guess you never had to go to the doctor or dentist? Buy clothes, linens or towels? Replace furniture or appliances? Save a little money for retirement? Pay off your six figure student loans?
Lucky you never got hit by a car or had all your possessions stolen or a hurricane, flood or tornado destroy your home.
BTW, According to the US Census Bureau, The 2011 Median Income of US households was $50,054 per annum. That's for a household with ~2.5. That breaks down to a bout $20,000 per person. Something like 30% of children in this country live in a household that has income below the official povery line.
Things are much worse than you think. Oh, and you're right, having children isn't a necessity. We don't need to propagate the species, do we?
I've certainly lived off a lot less than that (either of your numbers), quite comfortably. I once worked three jobs to be able to afford 1/2 a bedroom in a two bedroom apartment with three other guys. It created an incentive for me to find a more efficient way to earn what I needed in order to live in the style I wanted to live.
At what point did it become necessary that the government mandate a wage level so that people can live the way they want without incentive to live better?
Really, you think I'm a mean-spirited jerk with no empathy because I want people to have an incentive to get a better life and improve their skills?
What is your hierarchy of needs list that makes it so difficult to "live on" $1,000/month? Do we need to mandate a wage so that people can live alone in their own apartment or house? How large? Should they be able to have cell phone service, internet service? How about a computer? What kind?
Get a roommate or two and pool your resources.
In the richest country that *ever* existed, in an era of post-scarcity (at least here in the US) with productivity through the roof and increasing rapidly, how can we allow the removal of incentives for people to work hard and get ahead and make something of themselves.
Just because some fail doesn't mean we should dumb down the entire system so you don't hurt. Fear of failure is a great incentive.
I'd prefer to keep telling people that with hard work they can become something. It might not be easy but they will be all the more satisfied when they succeed.
Your argument strikes me as wanting to tell people the "man" is keeping you down and you'll never succeed so don't work hard and we'll make sure you can live a life of relative luxury.
Forget all that and explain the economics that would allow raising everyone's pay to live the standard you've set without causing a rise in the cost of living at that level.
Just to make sure I understand what you're saying. You believe that there is equal opportunity for all in this country? You should get out more, friend. I'm not going to try to disabuse you of your illusions. I just feel sorry for you.
Yes. Because that works so well for us. With 30% of the children in this country living in poverty? That we incentivize greed and graft? That it takes the *average* (not the lowest paid) worker in a large corporation more than a week to earn what the CEO earns in an hour? You can't tell me that the CEO works hundreds of times harder, can you?
In the incredibly rich society that we live in, we should be able to provide equal opportunity for all and create an environment where social mobility is increasing, not decreasing. Which it has been for the last 30 years or so.
Are you willing to pay higher taxes, and higher prices on things you buy? Because that's what has to happen. If businesses pay higher wages, they will pass the cost on to you. I agree that people should be paid a living wage, but that money has to come from somewhere.
Yes. And the tax code should be modified to incentivize reinvestment so that the 100,000 or so folks those who control 40% of the wealth in this country will put it into circulation, perhaps then 30% of our children won't have to live in poverty. Oh? Your kids don't have that problem, so fuck everyone else? I pity you.
Chili's pays £2/hour. The staff are paid with your tips.
Not with my tips. I don't eat at Chili's, nor do I live in the UK. But yes, restaurant wait staff often don't even get the minimum wage. Disgusting, isn't it?
Also, the minimum wage isn't supposed to be a living wage.
And why is that? Someone working full-time should be able to at least support themselves. Or is that too much to ask? Actually, it feeds right into the oligarchs' plans. Keep the great unwashed too poor and busy working two or three jobs to get involved and make a positive difference for themselves and their fellow citizens.
It's disgusting. Even $10.10/hour is only $21,008/year, assuming a 40 hour work week and no time off at all. That breaks down to gross pay of $1751/month. That's net pay (assuming 15% withholding for federal taxes and 6.25% SS/Medicare withholding) of $1378.65/month (note, this does not include state or local taxes, so it's less in places where those taxes apply). Yes, I know that folks making that wage will likely get most of that back as a tax refund, but that doesn't help them on a day to day basis.
So. A single person making ~$1400/month. Please tell me how many of you could live on that. Just you, not your kids or your spouse. And if you have a couple of young kids and need day care, clothes, car, food, electricity (should that be optional?), etc., etc., etc?
But the minimum wage isn't $10.10/hour. It's $7.25/hour. After taxes, that works out to be $989.63/month. Try living on that. Sigh.
I just did some simple calculations. Apparently, that's too difficult for some people. Or they're selfish, mean-spirited jerks who have no empathy. What do we call those with no empathy? Sociopaths.
In the richest country that *ever* existed, in an era of post-scarcity (at least here in the US) with productivity through the roof and increasing rapidly, how can we allow this? It just makes me want to hurl.
Not specifically illegal, however, if you are caught with it, it can be confiscated and accused of being part of a drug crime. Then, being a civil suit, the standards of evidence require that you to show that the property was not used in a crime, as the standard of guilt is significantly lower.
As an added bonus, if its more than one bill, some portion of the money certainly will test positive for cocaine or some other drug, so there is already evidence to be used against you if they feel they need it.
Yes. I am aware of the abuses of "Civil Forfeiture" in the US. I was addressing the incorrect assertion made that carrying large amounts of cash was *illegal*. I did say it was dumb. But that's not illegal either.
Carrying more than $100,000 in cash without a approval(or was it simple notification? or declared reason?) is illegal, though.
AFAIK, you must declare cash amounts above $10,000 if you are traveling internationally to/from the US. Traveling within the US, however, there is no reporting requirement or any restriction. It's probably dumb to carry that much cash, but being dumb isn't illegal either.
Those who would take our freedoms are the ones who are "ruining our everything." Those engaged in asymmetric warfare (including terror techniques) are definitely a concern. However, we've compromised our ideals (liberty, freedom of expression, freedom from government intrusion into the practice of our belief systems, etc., etc., etc.) with the focus on that small group, by allowing the government to intrude on our lives, our persons and our ideas.
You're still more likely to be killed by lightning than in violent attack against the general populace. You're many, many times more likely to die in or by an automobile than in such an attack. Strange that we're not allocating our resources to fit the probability of such occurrences.
That leads me to believe that the agenda of those engaged in curtailing our liberty is not one of preventing such attacks, but something else. What is that something else? A good question. It's possible that there is a nefarious plot to destroy our way of life (which, if true, is succeeding). However, I think Hanlon's Razor should be applied here.
Sure there's actionable differences. We would have gotten the RomneyCare if the Republicans had won in 2012. There's just not as much difference as many think.
Sure there's actionable differences. We would have gotten the RomneyCare if the Republicans had won in 2012. There's just not as much difference as many think.
Frankly, I do not believe bankers are a part of some cigar smoking Al-Qaeda terrorist conspiracy and I'd rather they were left alone than we go down this path.... it can only lead to even more gross abuses of power than what we've already seen.
You're right. But they are members of the oligarch class who will happily watch us all end up in the streets as long as they can maintain their profits. Actually, they'd like us all in the streets, since poor people have fewer opportunities to challenge their supremacy.
You can call that paranoia if you want, but given the lobbying and politician buying activities of that group, it's clear that they are willing to sacrifice our economic and social well-being in the pursuit of more money for them.
It's ultimately self-defeating, since their profits are based on our consumer society, but they'll happily sacrifice the future for quarterly gains (and bonuses).
That's not terrorism, but it is antithetical to the ideals of freedom and opportunity for all. That we don't regulate these guys or incentivize economic opportunity and equality says a lot about how deeply these guys have their filthy paws into our government.
And I can't even imagine how harsh would be the punishment for those who get caught laundering money for terrorists. Let's say if a big bank (i.e. HSBC, or Santander) got caught, certainly hundreds of people would go to jail, right?
Slashdot Mirror
That assumes that we know as much physics as they do. They might be using some medium to communicate that we haven't even discovered yet.
Certainly possible. But then, who of us could receive it?
Probably all of us would receive it.
After all, they would understand our limitations, by virtue of examining our transmissions, and adjust their transmissions accordingly.
You're assuming they would want to talk to us at all. Perhaps we are too backward to even bother saying hello to. Or perhaps they are preparing a sneak attack. Granted, we have little that could harm an advanced race, but why give us a couple of decades to prepare. If they've been watching us, they would certainly have figured out that humans are pretty good at finding creative ways of killing things when threatened.
Actually, they wouldn't need to be all that much more advanced than we are militarily. We sit at the bottom of a gravity well. As Heinlein suggested in The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, they could just "throw rocks" at us.
Not very high tech, is it?
Getting here is a completely different story, but the thought that extraterrestrial intelligence would need to be enormously more technologically advanced than we are is just not true. We (in cosmological terms) aren't so far off from creating devices that can autonomously manufacture machines to mine the moon or asteroids for rocks that can be set on intersecting trajectories with the Earth. Presumably, any intelligence that can build an autonomous probe capable of reaching us, could include that sort of technology in the probe. Berserkers are an (albeit fictional) example.
Minimum wage is not supposed to be a living wage because there are supposed to be entry level jobs for people who are starting out, not living on their own. If someone is qualified to responsibly manage having their own apartment, etc., then they're quite overqualified to tear movie tickets.
Actually, according to one of the sponsors (George Miller) of the 2007 minimum wage bill, that's not true. In fact, he said:
Don't you just hate those pesky facts?
Well we start by you volunteering to pay first, then we begin deducting an additional 25% of your salary to donate to a family in need ,and lastly we start doing the same thing with others that willingly volunteer their earnings to help the needy.
Thank you sir for your assistance in these difficult times.
Absolutely. In fact, the needy can have every penny of my salary over the past seven months. I assume you're next, eh?
But yes, restaurant wait staff often don't even get the minimum wage. Disgusting, isn't it?
They do in the US. If their wages plus tips ends up being less than the minimum wage, federal law requires that their employer pay the difference, so that they end up getting the minimum wage.
I was unaware that was required. Thanks! However, $7.25/hour is still not a living wage.
There are three types of lies: 1. Lies 2. Damn lies 3. Statistics
In a poverty-stricken community of 1000 people where 999 people earn $10000 per year, one person earns $100000000. That results in an average (mean) income of $109900 per person, which is not at all representative of the poverty. The problem with economic statistics is that they are painfully skewed by the top incomes.
Which is why the *median* is used and not the mean. Your folksy homilies are quaint, but unpersuasive. I suggest you actually try to understand this stuff. I'll counter your folksy homily with one of my own. "'tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt." Tag. You're it.
Someone working full-time should be able to at least support themselves.
Sez who?
I mean, it'd be nice if that were true. Heck, it's be nicer if I could work for only 1 hour a week and support myself.
But there's no guarantee of any of that.
Says me. And, IMHO, anyone who wants a society that is prosperous, functional and provides equal *opportunity* for it's citizens. Just throwing up your hands and saying "oh well, things don't work like that. I guess it sucks to be you." is intellectually lazy and smacks of narcissism.
Yes, I saw that link, but I was trying to illustrate the average income and how it isn't representative of the average person. I know plenty of married households where husband and wife (combined) earn less than $40k\year. When I worked as a software tester at Deere, about half of the engineers I knew didn't even make $70k.
I'm sorry. I'm confused. The term "average" can mean any of three different "measures of central tendency." The mean (add up all the data points and divide by the number of points), the mode (the data point occurring most frequently) and the median (a number where half of the data points lie above and half the data points lie below it).
The "average" person? When you say "average," which "measure of central tendency" are you referring to?
I'm glad you have a diverse circle, but the people you know don't represent the at-large population. Please explain what that has to do with anything other than your anecdotal experience.
*Median* income (which is almost always the measure used in economic analysis) is the income (based on gathered data and analysis) at which half the population falls below and half the population falls above.
Extremely few children in this country lives in true poverty. With public assistance, most "poor" live a life of luxury many in the truly poor parts of the world can only dream of having.
The idea that to allow everyone to get ahead, we need to bring down the top to meet the bottom is pure lunacy.
Any individual in our country with the desire to improve their station can do so. The idea that somehow the man is holding everyone down is a creation of government, left and right, to subjugate the populace. Sadly many have fallen for this hook, line, and sinker.
Cell phones, internet, and cable TV are luxury wants, not needs. Eating meals at a restaurant (even McDonalds) is a luxury.
The reality is that you'll never be able to fix stupid. You simply can't protect people from themselves.
The reality is much more nuanced and complex. I suggest you educate yourself. I doubt you will, and so I pity you the illusions you've bought into. Feel free to disagree and even say mean things about me. I don't mind.
The Utilitarian concept that all ideas should be expressed, examined and debated is an excellent one. It allows us to weigh all the ideas against each other as well as against the realities of our existence. In the end, the best ideas (sadly, often in retrospect) will be seen for what they are.
In the meantime, far be it for me to try to disabuse you of your world view. You need to decide for yourself.
Sorry, I forgot to respond to the other things.
I take care of myself by eating reasonably well, exercising, and visited the dental wing of a local college when I needed work. I was in a car accident when I was 20. My car insurance payed for the hospital expenses and work I missed. Clothes, housewares, appliances? Thrift stores and rummage sales. By the time I was 28, I had over $20k in savings. I guess I'm fortunate with regard to my student loans. My first degree was an AAS from a state school that I paid for as I attended, and my BA was at a private college (I know now, THAT was stupid), but I graduated with only about $55k in loans.
For about the last year, I've been making around $20\hr, and I still shop at thrift stores for almost all of my goods.
I'm not insisting that everyone can live like I do, but I'm telling you it's possible.
Good for you. I guess it's a good thing you never had anything catastrophic happen to you. I know what's possible. I've done very well for myself too, by working hard and trying not to be wasteful of resources.
I'm not pointing a finger at you. I'm pointing out that things are getting worse. Certainly, times have changed, but we used to encourage (through economic policy) a less stratified society with more social mobility. As the oligarchs have gained power, our society is becoming less free, less tolerant and opportunity is becoming more and more restricted.
I'm not advocating a "Harrison Bergeron" style society, but I am outraged and sickened by the efforts of the wealthiest and most powerful among us to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else.
We should try to make our society better in terms of opportunity and quality of life for all of us. That's my point.
I don't have the statistics handy, but last year I crunched some numbers to figure out estimates of the total working population. If the average income per person in 2012 was just shy of $43k (http://bber.unm.edu/econ/us-pci.htm), that's about $13.4 trillion (using the population numbers from http://quickfacts.census.gov/q...). Assuming everyone who works is working full-time or better (60% of the population? That's about 188.3 million people), we have an average income of $71155 per person. Of course, these are fuzzy numbers that I put together in just a couple minutes.
I included a link to the data in my post. No "back of the napkin" calculations necessary. Here's the link again.
Does this smell anything like the platform that our current president ran on, twice?
We don't need to pay more in taxes, we need to stop spending so much on things like war, unnecessary civil developments (Silent railroad crossings?), corporate welfare, politician pensions, etc. You're addressing a symptom of the problem, not the root: government spending and thieving to support private interests that are funneled through government spending.
Yes, there is a lot of waste in government. Especially on the military side. And corporate welfare and all kinds of other things. Government spending is absolutely an issue. Creating a fairer tax code would help too. Also, having economic and tax policies that encourage reinvestment in our society, its infrastructure and instruments of personal advancement (education, fairer employer/employee interactions, health care, child care, etc., etc., etc.) would be extremely helpful, IMHO.
The Democratic party and the Republican party are completely under the control of our oligarchs. Wealth and income inequality, the limiting of social mobility (through poor education, the growth of the prison population, destruction of full-time jobs, etc., etc., etc.), the rise of the surveillance (both government, and more troubling, corporate) society and the huge lies being told and believed about who benefits are all consequences of this.
The Obama administration is doing the same things the Bush administration did. The House and Senate (regardless of party) are just as corrupt and broken. Just because the Democrats sometimes *talk* about social justice and equality of opportunity, doesn't mean they're actually doing anything about it. The political theater of the "left" and "right" (if you really look at the actual, not the stated, policies of both "sides" we're not really very far apart) sets us against each other while the oligarchs bleed us. It's really sad.
Massive government spending is just another symptom. The root of the problem is that our government is beholden to the monied interests. They aren't going to loosen their grip unless we force them to do so. I wish I knew how to do that.
Please, get off your soap-box.
monthly expense 500 apartment 300 groceries 300 transportation expense 100 utilities total necessary expenses = 1200
Granted, I live in a smaller city, but Minneapolis is about the same cost, unless you need to go a great distance for work. Just outside of DC is also about the same. A nicer home, car, and children are not necessities. As an adult, I spent 10 years working for less than $10\hr. A large number of people I know make less than $10\hr. In fact, I made less than $8\hr until I was 26, and I was still able to live rather comfortably because I didn't waste money on things that I didn't need.
Does this mean that I think things are fine? No, I agree that income disparity is a horrible problem in a country where the "average" income is $75k\year, but very few of us know anyone who makes that much money.
No. I won't "get off my soapbox." Don't want to listen to me? Fine. But I suggest you educate yourself as to the facts. You're thinking, "well, I did it so everyone else's circumstances must be the same. If they can't hack it, they must be stupid or lazy." Think about what you're saying.
So I guess you never had to go to the doctor or dentist? Buy clothes, linens or towels? Replace furniture or appliances? Save a little money for retirement? Pay off your six figure student loans?
Lucky you never got hit by a car or had all your possessions stolen or a hurricane, flood or tornado destroy your home.
BTW, According to the US Census Bureau, The 2011 Median Income of US households was $50,054 per annum. That's for a household with ~2.5. That breaks down to a bout $20,000 per person. Something like 30% of children in this country live in a household that has income below the official povery line.
Things are much worse than you think. Oh, and you're right, having children isn't a necessity. We don't need to propagate the species, do we?
It's impossible for me to understand your logic.
I've certainly lived off a lot less than that (either of your numbers), quite comfortably. I once worked three jobs to be able to afford 1/2 a bedroom in a two bedroom apartment with three other guys. It created an incentive for me to find a more efficient way to earn what I needed in order to live in the style I wanted to live.
At what point did it become necessary that the government mandate a wage level so that people can live the way they want without incentive to live better?
Really, you think I'm a mean-spirited jerk with no empathy because I want people to have an incentive to get a better life and improve their skills?
What is your hierarchy of needs list that makes it so difficult to "live on" $1,000/month? Do we need to mandate a wage so that people can live alone in their own apartment or house? How large? Should they be able to have cell phone service, internet service? How about a computer? What kind?
Get a roommate or two and pool your resources.
In the richest country that *ever* existed, in an era of post-scarcity (at least here in the US) with productivity through the roof and increasing rapidly, how can we allow the removal of incentives for people to work hard and get ahead and make something of themselves.
Just because some fail doesn't mean we should dumb down the entire system so you don't hurt. Fear of failure is a great incentive.
I'd prefer to keep telling people that with hard work they can become something. It might not be easy but they will be all the more satisfied when they succeed.
Your argument strikes me as wanting to tell people the "man" is keeping you down and you'll never succeed so don't work hard and we'll make sure you can live a life of relative luxury.
Forget all that and explain the economics that would allow raising everyone's pay to live the standard you've set without causing a rise in the cost of living at that level.
Just to make sure I understand what you're saying. You believe that there is equal opportunity for all in this country? You should get out more, friend. I'm not going to try to disabuse you of your illusions. I just feel sorry for you.
Yes. Because that works so well for us. With 30% of the children in this country living in poverty? That we incentivize greed and graft? That it takes the *average* (not the lowest paid) worker in a large corporation more than a week to earn what the CEO earns in an hour? You can't tell me that the CEO works hundreds of times harder, can you?
In the incredibly rich society that we live in, we should be able to provide equal opportunity for all and create an environment where social mobility is increasing, not decreasing. Which it has been for the last 30 years or so.
Are you willing to pay higher taxes, and higher prices on things you buy? Because that's what has to happen. If businesses pay higher wages, they will pass the cost on to you. I agree that people should be paid a living wage, but that money has to come from somewhere.
Yes. And the tax code should be modified to incentivize reinvestment so that the 100,000 or so folks those who control 40% of the wealth in this country will put it into circulation, perhaps then 30% of our children won't have to live in poverty. Oh? Your kids don't have that problem, so fuck everyone else? I pity you.
Chili's pays £2/hour. The staff are paid with your tips.
Not with my tips. I don't eat at Chili's, nor do I live in the UK. But yes, restaurant wait staff often don't even get the minimum wage. Disgusting, isn't it?
Also, the minimum wage isn't supposed to be a living wage.
And why is that? Someone working full-time should be able to at least support themselves. Or is that too much to ask? Actually, it feeds right into the oligarchs' plans. Keep the great unwashed too poor and busy working two or three jobs to get involved and make a positive difference for themselves and their fellow citizens.
It's disgusting. Even $10.10/hour is only $21,008/year, assuming a 40 hour work week and no time off at all. That breaks down to gross pay of $1751/month. That's net pay (assuming 15% withholding for federal taxes and 6.25% SS/Medicare withholding) of $1378.65/month (note, this does not include state or local taxes, so it's less in places where those taxes apply). Yes, I know that folks making that wage will likely get most of that back as a tax refund, but that doesn't help them on a day to day basis.
So. A single person making ~$1400/month. Please tell me how many of you could live on that. Just you, not your kids or your spouse. And if you have a couple of young kids and need day care, clothes, car, food, electricity (should that be optional?), etc., etc., etc?
But the minimum wage isn't $10.10/hour. It's $7.25/hour. After taxes, that works out to be $989.63/month. Try living on that. Sigh.
I just did some simple calculations. Apparently, that's too difficult for some people. Or they're selfish, mean-spirited jerks who have no empathy. What do we call those with no empathy? Sociopaths.
In the richest country that *ever* existed, in an era of post-scarcity (at least here in the US) with productivity through the roof and increasing rapidly, how can we allow this? It just makes me want to hurl.
Not specifically illegal, however, if you are caught with it, it can be confiscated and accused of being part of a drug crime. Then, being a civil suit, the standards of evidence require that you to show that the property was not used in a crime, as the standard of guilt is significantly lower.
As an added bonus, if its more than one bill, some portion of the money certainly will test positive for cocaine or some other drug, so there is already evidence to be used against you if they feel they need it.
Yes. I am aware of the abuses of "Civil Forfeiture" in the US. I was addressing the incorrect assertion made that carrying large amounts of cash was *illegal*. I did say it was dumb. But that's not illegal either.
What did you think the enhanced airport screenings were for?
A good point! (pun intended)
Carrying more than $100,000 in cash without a approval(or was it simple notification? or declared reason?) is illegal, though.
AFAIK, you must declare cash amounts above $10,000 if you are traveling internationally to/from the US. Traveling within the US, however, there is no reporting requirement or any restriction. It's probably dumb to carry that much cash, but being dumb isn't illegal either.
Just in case you're wondering why the work DHS analists seems so ineffective, from TFA (page 50):
I didn't realize that Homeland Security had employees just to do anal. Your tax dollars at work.
...who are ruining our everything.
Those who would take our freedoms are the ones who are "ruining our everything." Those engaged in asymmetric warfare (including terror techniques) are definitely a concern. However, we've compromised our ideals (liberty, freedom of expression, freedom from government intrusion into the practice of our belief systems, etc., etc., etc.) with the focus on that small group, by allowing the government to intrude on our lives, our persons and our ideas.
You're still more likely to be killed by lightning than in violent attack against the general populace. You're many, many times more likely to die in or by an automobile than in such an attack. Strange that we're not allocating our resources to fit the probability of such occurrences.
That leads me to believe that the agenda of those engaged in curtailing our liberty is not one of preventing such attacks, but something else. What is that something else? A good question. It's possible that there is a nefarious plot to destroy our way of life (which, if true, is succeeding). However, I think Hanlon's Razor should be applied here.
Sure there's actionable differences. We would have gotten the RomneyCare if the Republicans had won in 2012. There's just not as much difference as many think.
There. FTFY.
Oh, wait...
Sure there's actionable differences. We would have gotten the RomneyCare if the Republicans had won in 2012. There's just not as much difference as many think.
There. FTFY.
Frankly, I do not believe bankers are a part of some cigar smoking Al-Qaeda terrorist conspiracy and I'd rather they were left alone than we go down this path .... it can only lead to even more gross abuses of power than what we've already seen.
You're right. But they are members of the oligarch class who will happily watch us all end up in the streets as long as they can maintain their profits. Actually, they'd like us all in the streets, since poor people have fewer opportunities to challenge their supremacy.
You can call that paranoia if you want, but given the lobbying and politician buying activities of that group, it's clear that they are willing to sacrifice our economic and social well-being in the pursuit of more money for them.
It's ultimately self-defeating, since their profits are based on our consumer society, but they'll happily sacrifice the future for quarterly gains (and bonuses).
That's not terrorism, but it is antithetical to the ideals of freedom and opportunity for all. That we don't regulate these guys or incentivize economic opportunity and equality says a lot about how deeply these guys have their filthy paws into our government.
And I can't even imagine how harsh would be the punishment for those who get caught laundering money for terrorists. Let's say if a big bank (i.e. HSBC, or Santander) got caught, certainly hundreds of people would go to jail, right?
I feel so safe with all these laws protecting us.
Because our government would never allow a bank which financed drug dealers and fomented revolution to do business in the US, right?
Granted, this was a long time ago, but not much has changed, has it?