Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Louella Dougans]

I would very much like to see if the effects of increasing the minimum wage to a degree where having a job actually meant an increased standard of living from living on government assistance, would alleviate an issue like that.

It wouldn't.

House rents would increase to the point where being in employment is only marginally better financially than being career unemployable. The difference in living standard is tiny, and requires a huge expenditure of time and energy, making being in employment a poor choice for many persons.

[Casiella]

Louella, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

[Saede Riordan]

I would very much like to see if the effects of increasing the minimum wage to a degree where having a job actually meant an increased standard of living from living on government assistance, would alleviate an issue like that.

It wouldn't.

House rents would increase to the point where being in employment is only marginally better financially than being career unemployable. The difference in living standard is tiny, and requires a huge expenditure of time and energy, making being in employment a poor choice for many persons.

Thats not addressing the root issue though. The Root issue is that currently getting a job is simply not worth the expenditure in time and energy, and having a job just doesn't increase your standard of living enough to make it at all worthwhile. To paraphrase more bluntly what you're claiming, "If you try to make it work, you'll fail" but that's not what I'm asking. What I'm asking is if you could make it work, if you could make having even the lowest wage job offer a decent enough increase in one's standard of living to make it worthwhile to hold a job, would it lead to less people wanting to just live off welfare? That is the question I'm asking, and saying "inflation won't let that ever happen" doesn't answer the question, it dodges it entirely.

[Louella Dougans]

http://www.stirlingobserver.co.uk/stirling-news/local-news-stirling/news-stirling/2009/11/18/row-breaks-out-at-stirling-council-over-rent-arrears-51226-25189839/

A ROW has broken out over increased rent arrears following Stirling Council’s ban on evictions.
Stirling Council’s executive heard last week that a hard core of tenants were still failing to pay rent despite several approaches and offers of support from the council.

[Louella Dougans]

It wouldn't.

House rents would increase to the point where being in employment is only marginally better financially than being career unemployable. The difference in living standard is tiny, and requires a huge expenditure of time and energy, making being in employment a poor choice for many persons.

Thats not addressing the root issue though. The Root issue is that currently getting a job is simply not worth the expenditure in time and energy, and having a job just doesn't increase your standard of living enough to make it at all worthwhile. To paraphrase more bluntly what you're claiming, "If you try to make it work, you'll fail" but that's not what I'm asking. What I'm asking is if you could make it work, if you could make having even the lowest wage job offer a decent enough increase in one's standard of living to make it worthwhile to hold a job, would it lead to less people wanting to just live off welfare? That is the question I'm asking, and saying "inflation won't let that ever happen" doesn't answer the question, it dodges it entirely.

No.

The hardcore refuseniks would not take up employment, regardless of living standards.

Example: those people who squat in empty buildings, and bin rake for food.

They are advocates of slavery. They expect other people to provide them with shelter, and food, and do nothing in return. That is slavery.

[Saede Riordan]

Is there actually evidence that 'those people' do what they do for the reasons you claim? Has there ever been any study done to provide more then tangential evidence that people actually behave in the way you're claiming? Because if so I'm yet to see it.

[Louella Dougans]

Yes. There are people with university degrees who would prefer to squat and binrake, than to be employed.

[Casiella]

"There are people" is not evidence nor a study.  It's hearsay, and non-specific hearsay at best.

I'm sure somebody has studied this; I don't pretend to know what the results are, but until that's available, this is just slandering your fellow citizens / subjects / {appropriate noun for various countries here}.

[Jev North]

Yes. There are people with university degrees who would prefer to squat and binrake, than to be employed.

Says a lot about the value of an university degree, yeah?

[Louella Dougans]

"There are people" is not evidence nor a study.  It's hearsay, and non-specific hearsay at best.

I'm sure somebody has studied this; I don't pretend to know what the results are, but until that's available, this is just slandering your fellow citizens / subjects / {appropriate noun for various countries here}.

cursory google search finds such as:

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-03-27/living/free.commerce_1_recycling-dumpsters-deron-beal?_s=PM:LIVING

Nelson says freeganism has nothing to do with income. She says many divers, herself included, have at least moderate incomes: "It's really about boycotting the consumerist system."

"boycotting the consumerist system" is a lifestyle choice. These people choose to live that way.

[Casiella]

That's a human interest news story, not a regular study.

I mean, let's say that it's one person per hundred thousand. That's enough in a city like mine to have 50 to 70 "freeloaders". In proportion to the rest of the "deserving poor" (and those quotes are there for a reason), it's so miniscule as not to be worth the effort.

If this sort of tragedy-of-the-commons is actually a problem, you'd think it would be seriously documented and that the people who claim it's a serious problem would at least know some rough numbers around it.

[Ken]

the plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

Massive adoration for this statement.  Your words?

[Saede Riordan]

Louella: Those people in the link you provided are not leeching off the government though, they are not on welfare, and are therefore not part of any relevant dataset. They're dumpster diving because they feel like it. Not because the other option is to have jobs and they'd rather eat out of dumpsters then work. It says right in the quote you provided that many of them do in fact have moderate incomes. Its simply not relevant to the topic.

[Casiella]

Ken, I'm sure I heard it somewhere before, it's sort of folk wisdom among stats / data people.

[Louella Dougans]

Louella: Those people in the link you provided are not leeching off the government though, they are not on welfare, and are therefore not part of any relevant dataset. They're dumpster diving because they feel like it. Not because the other option is to have jobs and they'd rather eat out of dumpsters then work. It says right in the quote you provided that many of them do in fact have moderate incomes. Its simply not relevant to the topic.

Not really.

They're relevant because that attitude of entitlement appears across all groups in society.

And their existence is a problem, a number of >0 is a problem. Because these people are not invisible. They don't live in a vacuum.

Other people in the community see the refuseniks, and it is massively, massively demoralising.

They're still slavers, and still a cancer on society.