From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Sun Apr 06 2003 - 15:39:30 MDT
Dehede011@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 4/5/2003 11:21:14 PM Central Standard Time,
>rafal@smigrodzki.org writes: As usual with such schemes, those who are
>burdened so, will attempt to reduce the payout, e.g. by substituting
>mechanized labor, stopping to patronize businesses which have to increase
>...
> Figuring here on the back of my envelope I will lose the savings in
>labor as that is lost due to the payraise.
>Ron h.
>
I did a few spreadsheet calculations, involving the current minimum
wage, the hours in a week, and the cost of rent in substandard housing
in the area where I live. Working full time at minimum wage, and
without counting taxes or any other expenses (e.g., food, clothes, etc.)
a persons would end up with less than $7 per day after paying their
rent. (I forget how much less, and I made several optomistic assumptions.)
You might want to think about that, when you are recommending that the
minimum wage be lowered or removed. Effectively, it already has been.
People can't avoid paying taxes, so they would actually end up in the
hole for paying their rent at the end of a month, even with no other
expenses at all. (e.g., food, clothes, medicine.)
Now actually the way people live through this is by stuffing an illegal
number of people into one apartment. So this means that they are at the
mercy of any authority who has it in for them, and since they are easy
targets there are many who take advantage. And I forgot to include
transportation. Another necessity which must be paid, and can't be
afforded.
Your estimates and models are based on assuming that free choice is
available. This is in contradiction to the observed facts. If you want
to know why a disporportionate number of low income people turn to
violent crime, look at the above and consider that desperation might be
involved. Or a reluctance to willingly sign themselves over to a life
of slavery. (Yes, it's a bad answer. But desperation frequently yields
bad answers.)
And yes, I know individuals who have escaped from the trap. This
doesn't alter the fact that for the majority, it is real, present, and
appearantly unavoidable. If you strip hope from people, don't be
surprised if they strip life or property from you. It can be reliably
predicted that this wouldn't help most of them much, but *you* wouldn't
be there to know.
I have never supposed that "Homeland Security" was mainly intended to
protect us against foreigners. I look at what they are doing, and
observe who is mainly being observed, and I figure that where they are
paying attention is where they intend to act. Most of the powers they
have been granted have nothing to do with stopping foreign terrorists,
and a lot to do with controlling citizens. Especially those who have
been "law abiding". So I feel that the government is well aware that it
is driving many citizens to the point of desperation, and is intending
to be able to ride out the storm. Like Napoleon as the Corporal of the
Guard (I think he was still a corporal then), they will be able to draw
a deadline, and kill anyone who crosses it. I don't know how that bit
of history will work out this time around, but if we live to see it, we
will consider ourselves quite lucky if we live through it.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 06 2003 - 15:49:18 MDT