So You Want to Fix the "Income Gap" and Help the Working Poor........

[flacaltenn]

Some real thinking outside the box here.

I like the ideas.

A tiered min wage system. There's another aspect with minimum wage that should be looked at as well and that is age. Should an unemancipated highschool student earn the same wage as someone supporting him or herself?

That's a HUGE issue for me. Because it actually ties TOGETHER those 2 concepts of HS Grad rate and the Min Wage.. If you have ONE min wage and you jack it to $15/hour -- what do you suppose is gonna HAPPEN to that 60% drop out rate? And kids leaving home and school? It's those "unintended consequences" that make these "good intentions" into MORE destruction and MORE generations of working poor..

With the 2 tier system -- those kids HAVE to stay in school to make the bigger bucks. If they want to leave an abusive home, that's up to them. But if they LEAVE High School or are not pursuing a GED and other goals -- they'll be on the lower Min Wage Tier..

As far as young kids making the same min wage as adults -- SURE.. Assume they're saving money for college or tech school or just living independently at some point. Which is what SHOULD happen. If it gets spent on-line shopping or dating instead -- so be it... Not into enforcing life choices. I'm into avoiding economic ruin and jail....

 

[flacaltenn]

Well, to b cear, I just don think the govt should be mandating that.
Isn't too much the govt SHOULD be mandating. Pay isnt one of them

Kinda agree about setting a min wage. No WAY it should be Federal for starters. Because cost of living and labor is so different all over the place. And it should STAY that way.

But I've always thought that if you HAD a Min Wage -- it should be MANAGED. Not neglected for 20 years thru recessions and booms by Congress. They didn't even adjust it for the longest time.

Let the states consider it as ONE tool to fight income disparity anyway they please. Even the cities if they're stupid enough to think they are isolated from the general labor market enough to do it. It does not affect a large number of workers anyways. But the ones that it does -- are primarily young people who should be CONTINUING education in order to survive in the 21st Century job market. And you don't want to ENTICE THEM to be comfortable in jobs that are prone to automation or reassignment if they're not equipped to "move up"..

 

[flacaltenn]

Tired of the noise -- I'm sticking to policy and ideas. There are SO MANY SOLUTIONS out there that don't even get the slightest exposure. Because all festering problems are mired in the 2 party finger pointing. Meanwhile -- there are MILLIONS of politically invested America WORKING these problems and coming up with valid "alternative" solutions that you've never once heard about from Brand Name party leaders or the Media.

Here's 2 that apply to helping people cope with the changing meaning of a "job" and the way we approach "income equality"..

Chapter One..

First -- the Min Wage in all it's demogoguery and slender. One side wants to makes folks comfortable in menial jobs that don't lead to sustainable careers by PROMOTING THE JOB -- not the person. And the other side makes economic arguments about the cost or viability of the "raising all boats" approach.

How about ---- a Two Tiered Min Wage. One where the emphasis is getting people OUT of menial starting jobs and into careers. Tier ONE -- with the higher wage min -- requires that the worker currently be enrolled in some (almost ANY) form of continuing Ed. Could be vocational school, getting a GED, Art School, Divinity training, or even "Life Skills" for the actually retarded. Don't really CARE what it is --- as long as the worker is committed to continuing Ed. Seniors over 65 would get an exemption to be in Tier One.

Tier Two -- is the lower min wage. And would be the base from which adjustments to either Tier are made over time. However the ratio of wages would be kept constant with adjustments.

With THIS system -- I'd be MUCH MORE inclined to generousity when it comes to APPROACHING a "living wage". Because it's no longer just promoting the job -- it's promoting the INDIVIDUAL..

Chapter Two

In a similar way, every social net is SOME form of contract. There are onerous requirements considered like drug testing or kicking Granny out of public housing because her granddaughter "dealt drugs" while visiting. This proposal is NOWHERE near as onerous.

It's simple. Families recieving TANF or EITC or any other welfare would have a stated responsibility to keep their kids in school until 12th grade graduation. They must sign report cards, be aware of truancy, respond to requests from school authorities and make EVERY effort to keep their kids status and enrollment. They need to confer about found learning disabilities, provide the necessary supplies and the BASICS.

If a child is UNMANAGEABLE and simply cannot be compelled to attend and participate (up to the age of STATE legal emancipation) they must sign a release that allows the school to reassign them or otherwise attempt to get them educated. Perhaps academies are started with the discipline and special tutoring required. Don't CARE if those are "for profit" because we're talking about literally saving lives and keeping asses out of prison..

BOTH of these concepts add new wrinkles to those battles. Gives actual long term RESULTS. And is far more designed and nuanced than any stereotypical Dem/Rep/Media approach to the issue..

Two things. What is the motivation? You're asking people to do more schooling for as separate minimum wage. Yeah, its slightly higher than the none schooled program.

Whats the motivation to get them out of minimum wage to make room for younger recruits.

There has to be some kind of finish line where if they cross it, and haven't improved their position, they are on their own or they have to pay back the cost of their training.

It has to be said. Young people particularly, but people in general, have to be motivated. Left to their own, they'll just sit back and let people argue that they should get more money for doing nothing extra, and they'll let you do that all day long.

It's mobility. If they don't have that continuing education in the age where "a job" requires flexibility and skills, they CANNOT get out easily to "make room". It's also as a simple disincentive NOT to quit HS. Or if they HAVE a HS diploma -- to continue SOME FORM of skills development.

Folks training for better employment get a higher guaranteed wage. Folks that don't -- have a lower "support net". That gets them "off their butts" -- if that's your concern.

 

[flacaltenn]

Ever hear of RED NECK REVOLT, some of there stuff could work re income gap.

Is that where they leave their Christmas lights lit all year on the front porch just to piss off the Liberals??

 

[Wry Catcher]

Social engineering created the problems you're trying to fix with social engineering.

Here ya go, the idea that no solution exists ^^^ is the meat and potatoes of a true callous conservative; one who offers nothing but an echo of a meme.

Much of which is proposed in the OP was part of Welfare Reform, when TANF replaced AFDC. TANF allowed each state to develop a plan of their own devising, I don't know what other states have done, but CA has rules in place which require many of ideas suggested in the OP.

Does Cali actually tie Parent participation into benefits? I doubt that progressive paradise would make that kind of deal..

I don't have detailed information (I've never needed aid in my life) so I'll let you seek the answers in the links below:

CalWORKS

CDSS Public Site > Benefits & Services > Child Services > CalWORKs Child Care

I do know that Probation provides limited services to 300's (neglected or abused); 601's (out of parental control) and 602's (those who commit a criminal law violation). 300's are under the care of Social Service, who provide a wide range of counseling services as are many of the 601's.

I can give more detail on these issues but to do so would reveal to much of my personal information. If you like PM me and I'll give you a rundown on a couple of programs that I administered but were cut from my budget by myopic county supervisors.

 

[flacaltenn]

So -- you advocate ENDING min wage and social welfare because they are "social engineering". Here's the dirty secret. IT SHOULD BE ENGINEERING. Govt should face issues more like Engineers and less like Santa Claus..

You just seem to be proving the cliché that defines insanity as doing what has been done before, and expecting a different result.

Too much of government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong is what created the problem. You are not going to solve the problem by having government stick its nose even deeper into where it doesn't belong.

There's a corrolary to the "insanity" definition. And that is -- Spending MORE and MORE on stuff that didn't work before --- is also insanity. Better design of the "contracts". Get some PERSONAL buy-in. You don't "fix" anyone. You HELP them "fix" themselves.. You certainly don't HINDER them or abandon them..

OF COURSE -- a lot could be done with Zillions of volunteer hours. A volunteer hour or privately subsidized program is worth FAR MORE than a check from DC. Sitting there and watching the jails fill up with HS dropouts is not really a good plan.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The National minimum wage law is a perfect storm of unconstitutionality, economic folly, and immorality. It is unconstitutional because Congress is only empowered to regulate interstate commerce, and not the relationships between employer and employee, which are neither Commerce nor interstate. As to the economic wisdom, no less a Leftist icon than Paul Krugman - before he took up political prostitution - noted the stupidity of the MW in his first Economics text. As for the moral issue, if an employer has work to be done which she values at $5.00 per hpur, and there is a person who wants to do that work for the offered wage, then the MW law steps in; the work doesn't get done, and the would-be worker remains unemployed. Immoral as hell.

Along with the Abomination known as Davis Bacon, the MW should be abolished immediately. Nothing but good will come of it.

The minimum wage will never go away, if we have to have it at least do it right..take Australia for example ..

The best idea on raising the minimum wage you've never heard of




The minimum wage in Australia is $16.37 an hour for working adults, more than double the U.S. federal minimum hourly wage of $7.25.

“More than a few conservative eyeballs probably just bulged out of their sockets seeing that number. Stay with me, though, because here’s where things get interesting: For 19-year-olds in Australia, the minimum wage is $13.51. For 17-year-olds, it’s $9.46. For 15-year-olds, it’s $6.03.”


The benefits



.
Were we to establish an Australian-style age-based sliding minimum wage in America, companies such as McDonald’s would naturally look to hire younger, cheaper laborers for entry-level positions, giving them a taste of working life. Teenagers would see their pay automatically rise as they got older and more experienced, which would serve as an incentive for them to stay on the job rather than flaking at the first sign of frustration….

“Entry-level jobs would go to entry-level workers.

“At the same time, a $15 hourly minimum wage for older workers would ensure that jobs with responsibilities too tough for teenagers would be fairly compensated.”

..

 

[TNHarley]

Well, to b cear, I just don think the govt should be mandating that.
Isn't too much the govt SHOULD be mandating. Pay isnt one of them

Kinda agree about setting a min wage. No WAY it should be Federal for starters. Because cost of living and labor is so different all over the place. And it should STAY that way.

But I've always thought that if you HAD a Min Wage -- it should be MANAGED. Not neglected for 20 years thru recessions and booms by Congress. They didn't even adjust it for the longest time.

Let the states consider it as ONE tool to fight income disparity anyway they please. Even the cities if they're stupid enough to think they are isolated from the general labor market enough to do it. It does not affect a large number of workers anyways. But the ones that it does -- are primarily young people who should be CONTINUING education in order to survive in the 21st Century job market. And you don't want to ENTICE THEM to be comfortable in jobs that are prone to automation or reassignment if they're not equipped to "move up"..

I'm with you
I mean, MW is here to stay. Im not much on stripping things away from people. Even if it's unconstitutional. I think you have something going here. As long as standards can NOT be adjusted, I am with you.
I just never got on board with MW. If companies don't pay much, all the worker has to do is leave. Or what if that job just isn't worth it? I mean, fifteen bucks for flipping burgers or washing a truck with a pressure washer at the big auto dealer? No way.
I do believe in some sorts of govt intervention but its an enumerated power. At least in my mind. But that is another thread .

 

[Wyatt earp]

The National minimum wage law is a perfect storm of unconstitutionality, economic folly, and immorality. It is unconstitutional because Congress is only empowered to regulate interstate commerce, and not the relationships between employer and employee, which are neither Commerce nor interstate. As to the economic wisdom, no less a Leftist icon than Paul Krugman - before he took up political prostitution - noted the stupidity of the MW in his first Economics text. As for the moral issue, if an employer has work to be done which she values at $5.00 per hpur, and there is a person who wants to do that work for the offered wage, then the MW law steps in; the work doesn't get done, and the would-be worker remains unemployed. Immoral as hell.

Along with the Abomination known as Davis Bacon, the MW should be abolished immediately. Nothing but good will come of it.

The minimum wage will never go away, if we have to have it at least do it right..take Australia for example ..

The best idea on raising the minimum wage you've never heard of




The minimum wage in Australia is $16.37 an hour for working adults, more than double the U.S. federal minimum hourly wage of $7.25.

“More than a few conservative eyeballs probably just bulged out of their sockets seeing that number. Stay with me, though, because here’s where things get interesting: For 19-year-olds in Australia, the minimum wage is $13.51. For 17-year-olds, it’s $9.46. For 15-year-olds, it’s $6.03.”


The benefits



.
Were we to establish an Australian-style age-based sliding minimum wage in America, companies such as McDonald’s would naturally look to hire younger, cheaper laborers for entry-level positions, giving them a taste of working life. Teenagers would see their pay automatically rise as they got older and more experienced, which would serve as an incentive for them to stay on the job rather than flaking at the first sign of frustration….

“Entry-level jobs would go to entry-level workers.

“At the same time, a $15 hourly minimum wage for older workers would ensure that jobs with responsibilities too tough for teenagers would be fairly compensated.”

..

Damn even Krauthammer agrees with this..


Should Your Minimum Wage Depend on Your Age?




Charles Krauthammer proposed what, to many, might have sounded like a rather novel compromise on the minimum wage. His idea? We should have two of them, a higher minimum for "breadwinners," and a lower minimum for everybody else.

Here was Krauthammer's thinking, paraphrased. It might be hard to feed a whole household on $7.25 an hour. But raising the minimum is most likely to hurt teenagers and minorities who rely on low-paid, entry-level jobs to get a foothold in the working world. So how do you lend a hand to hard-pressed families without penalizing the young? Force employers to pay the "breadwinners" more, and everybody else less.

He called his two-tiered solution "a reasonable answer that Republicans and conservatives could offer."

Already, Krauthammer has gotten a bit of pushback. "Proponents and skeptics of a higher minimum wage can agree that Krauthammer is wrong about this," Slate's Matt Yglesiasquipped on Twitter. The Washington Examiner's Philip Klein argued that figuring out who qualified as a "breadwinner" and making sure employers paid them appropriately would be a regulatory headache



.

 

[BluesLegend]

Outlaw liberalism and its anti business policies, the rest will take care of itself.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Tired of the noise -- I'm sticking to policy and ideas. There are SO MANY SOLUTIONS out there that don't even get the slightest exposure. Because all festering problems are mired in the 2 party finger pointing. Meanwhile -- there are MILLIONS of politically invested America WORKING these problems and coming up with valid "alternative" solutions that you've never once heard about from Brand Name party leaders or the Media.

Here's 2 that apply to helping people cope with the changing meaning of a "job" and the way we approach "income equality"..

Chapter One..

First -- the Min Wage in all it's demogoguery and slender. One side wants to makes folks comfortable in menial jobs that don't lead to sustainable careers by PROMOTING THE JOB -- not the person. And the other side makes economic arguments about the cost or viability of the "raising all boats" approach.

How about ---- a Two Tiered Min Wage. One where the emphasis is getting people OUT of menial starting jobs and into careers. Tier ONE -- with the higher wage min -- requires that the worker currently be enrolled in some (almost ANY) form of continuing Ed. Could be vocational school, getting a GED, Art School, Divinity training, or even "Life Skills" for the actually retarded. Don't really CARE what it is --- as long as the worker is committed to continuing Ed. Seniors over 65 would get an exemption to be in Tier One.

Tier Two -- is the lower min wage. And would be the base from which adjustments to either Tier are made over time. However the ratio of wages would be kept constant with adjustments.

With THIS system -- I'd be MUCH MORE inclined to generousity when it comes to APPROACHING a "living wage". Because it's no longer just promoting the job -- it's promoting the INDIVIDUAL..

Chapter Two

In a similar way, every social net is SOME form of contract. There are onerous requirements considered like drug testing or kicking Granny out of public housing because her granddaughter "dealt drugs" while visiting. This proposal is NOWHERE near as onerous.

It's simple. Families recieving TANF or EITC or any other welfare would have a stated responsibility to keep their kids in school until 12th grade graduation. They must sign report cards, be aware of truancy, respond to requests from school authorities and make EVERY effort to keep their kids status and enrollment. They need to confer about found learning disabilities, provide the necessary supplies and the BASICS.

If a child is UNMANAGEABLE and simply cannot be compelled to attend and participate (up to the age of STATE legal emancipation) they must sign a release that allows the school to reassign them or otherwise attempt to get them educated. Perhaps academies are started with the discipline and special tutoring required. Don't CARE if those are "for profit" because we're talking about literally saving lives and keeping asses out of prison..

BOTH of these concepts add new wrinkles to those battles. Gives actual long term RESULTS. And is far more designed and nuanced than any stereotypical Dem/Rep/Media approach to the issue..

So your minimum wage idea. Let's expand on that one for now.

1- Who pays the added wage?
2- For how long is someone eligible for it?
3- If they fail or don't do school. They get dropped to the lower wage?

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Equality of Outcomes for all !!!!!!!!!

 

[Wry Catcher]

So -- you advocate ENDING min wage and social welfare because they are "social engineering". Here's the dirty secret. IT SHOULD BE ENGINEERING. Govt should face issues more like Engineers and less like Santa Claus..

You just seem to be proving the cliché that defines insanity as doing what has been done before, and expecting a different result.

Too much of government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong is what created the problem. You are not going to solve the problem by having government stick its nose even deeper into where it doesn't belong.

There's a corrolary to the "insanity" definition. And that is -- Spending MORE and MORE on stuff that didn't work before --- is also insanity. Better design of the "contracts". Get some PERSONAL buy-in. You don't "fix" anyone. You HELP them "fix" themselves.. You certainly don't HINDER them or abandon them..

OF COURSE -- a lot could be done with Zillions of volunteer hours. A volunteer hour or privately subsidized program is worth FAR MORE than a check from DC. Sitting there and watching the jails fill up with HS dropouts is not really a good plan.

Mostly agree. Volunteers need to be vetted, printed and complete a thorough background check.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

We tried making good grades required for students to get their driver's licenses. That failed miserably.

Now, we just mandate they stay in school until they are 18 before dropping out, so they sit around and cause problems instead of getting gone!

Trying to make irresponsible people responsible is impossible without pain!

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Actually the liberal propaganda centers are the PROBLEM. I really don't want any of my descendants to attend the public school system anymore, it is only a place to destroy all of the values and the aspirations of any individual child with even a modicum of honor, and intellect. The only way to repair our country is to completely STOP all liberal socialist/communist programs. Then rebuild them with the foundation being achievement, honor, and personal responsibility. Then there wont be a need for a "minimum wage"

I'd like to know how to do that. Because large urban poor communities have 40% and MORE dropping out. The solution for suburban schools isn't anything LIKE the war zones in the urban centers. One of lefty heroes USED to be Jerry Brown. Not so much since he became governor and lost his principles. But as Mayor of Oakland, he fought vehement lefty opposition to a "military style public academy". 6 days a week. 9th to 12th grade. 7 hours a day.. They called him every name in the book. It opened in a lottery with 8500 (iirc) applicants for 800 slots. THOSE parents are not the problem. If given CHOICES -- they WILL put kids in there that would benefit. And it was a huge benefit to Oakland school system.

Every effort needs to be made to FIX that grad rate. When 70% of kids are not graduating from inner city schools, that's a bigger problem than the "indoctrination" that DOES exist -- along with some really bad Academic ideas from the teaching schools.

Families receiving benefits need to do the MINIMUM to keep THEIR kids in school..

Then once they're taken away from their parents they can be reeducated to follow the will of the government.

Education in Nazi Germany

*****SMILE*****





No thank you.

 

[flacaltenn]

Well, to b cear, I just don think the govt should be mandating that.
Isn't too much the govt SHOULD be mandating. Pay isnt one of them

Kinda agree about setting a min wage. No WAY it should be Federal for starters. Because cost of living and labor is so different all over the place. And it should STAY that way.

But I've always thought that if you HAD a Min Wage -- it should be MANAGED. Not neglected for 20 years thru recessions and booms by Congress. They didn't even adjust it for the longest time.

Let the states consider it as ONE tool to fight income disparity anyway they please. Even the cities if they're stupid enough to think they are isolated from the general labor market enough to do it. It does not affect a large number of workers anyways. But the ones that it does -- are primarily young people who should be CONTINUING education in order to survive in the 21st Century job market. And you don't want to ENTICE THEM to be comfortable in jobs that are prone to automation or reassignment if they're not equipped to "move up"..

I'm with you
I mean, MW is here to stay. Im not much on stripping things away from people. Even if it's unconstitutional. I think you have something going here. As long as standards can NOT be adjusted, I am with you.
I just never got on board with MW. If companies don't pay much, all the worker has to do is leave. Or what if that job just isn't worth it? I mean, fifteen bucks for flipping burgers or washing a truck with a pressure washer at the big auto dealer? No way.
I do believe in some sorts of govt intervention but its an enumerated power. At least in my mind. But that is another thread .

It's certainly one of those things that DC should stop pandering and tinkering with. One LESS thing for them to juggle. And it doesn't make sense for them to do so in any shape or form. So --- POOF -- it's now "constitutional" for states and local to act on.

 

[flacaltenn]

The National minimum wage law is a perfect storm of unconstitutionality, economic folly, and immorality. It is unconstitutional because Congress is only empowered to regulate interstate commerce, and not the relationships between employer and employee, which are neither Commerce nor interstate. As to the economic wisdom, no less a Leftist icon than Paul Krugman - before he took up political prostitution - noted the stupidity of the MW in his first Economics text. As for the moral issue, if an employer has work to be done which she values at $5.00 per hpur, and there is a person who wants to do that work for the offered wage, then the MW law steps in; the work doesn't get done, and the would-be worker remains unemployed. Immoral as hell.

Along with the Abomination known as Davis Bacon, the MW should be abolished immediately. Nothing but good will come of it.

The minimum wage will never go away, if we have to have it at least do it right..take Australia for example ..

The best idea on raising the minimum wage you've never heard of




The minimum wage in Australia is $16.37 an hour for working adults, more than double the U.S. federal minimum hourly wage of $7.25.

“More than a few conservative eyeballs probably just bulged out of their sockets seeing that number. Stay with me, though, because here’s where things get interesting: For 19-year-olds in Australia, the minimum wage is $13.51. For 17-year-olds, it’s $9.46. For 15-year-olds, it’s $6.03.”


The benefits



.
Were we to establish an Australian-style age-based sliding minimum wage in America, companies such as McDonald’s would naturally look to hire younger, cheaper laborers for entry-level positions, giving them a taste of working life. Teenagers would see their pay automatically rise as they got older and more experienced, which would serve as an incentive for them to stay on the job rather than flaking at the first sign of frustration….

“Entry-level jobs would go to entry-level workers.

“At the same time, a $15 hourly minimum wage for older workers would ensure that jobs with responsibilities too tough for teenagers would be fairly compensated.”

..

Damn even Krauthammer agrees with this..


Should Your Minimum Wage Depend on Your Age?




Charles Krauthammer proposed what, to many, might have sounded like a rather novel compromise on the minimum wage. His idea? We should have two of them, a higher minimum for "breadwinners," and a lower minimum for everybody else.

Here was Krauthammer's thinking, paraphrased. It might be hard to feed a whole household on $7.25 an hour. But raising the minimum is most likely to hurt teenagers and minorities who rely on low-paid, entry-level jobs to get a foothold in the working world. So how do you lend a hand to hard-pressed families without penalizing the young? Force employers to pay the "breadwinners" more, and everybody else less.

He called his two-tiered solution "a reasonable answer that Republicans and conservatives could offer."

Already, Krauthammer has gotten a bit of pushback. "Proponents and skeptics of a higher minimum wage can agree that Krauthammer is wrong about this," Slate's Matt Yglesiasquipped on Twitter. The Washington Examiner's Philip Klein argued that figuring out who qualified as a "breadwinner" and making sure employers paid them appropriately would be a regulatory headache



.

The Australian version is interesting. But somehow I'm getting this picture of an over-achieving 15 yr old working next to a lazy 19 old and asking how in the world the Govt demands he get paid less than 1/2? Bad 1st intro to labor economics for the better 15 yr old employee.

And KrautHammer's deal is a bit awkward in that even a 21 yr kid raised by a retired/ill Grammy and still living in her house would -- or would not ??? -- be a breadwinner.

Applaud the efforts for better thinking on this, but instead of discriminating by those classes (age, dependents) -- focus on the REASON for a "min wage" job. The 18 yr maybe has to SAVE for college so they can EAT (or drink) --- or help support his mom/dad/family -- so who's to say "who needs the money and who doesn't".

Better to encourage them NOT to depend on getting comfortable in minimal skills jobs when the entire context of "a job" is rapidly changing..

 

[flacaltenn]

Tired of the noise -- I'm sticking to policy and ideas. There are SO MANY SOLUTIONS out there that don't even get the slightest exposure. Because all festering problems are mired in the 2 party finger pointing. Meanwhile -- there are MILLIONS of politically invested America WORKING these problems and coming up with valid "alternative" solutions that you've never once heard about from Brand Name party leaders or the Media.

Here's 2 that apply to helping people cope with the changing meaning of a "job" and the way we approach "income equality"..

Chapter One..

First -- the Min Wage in all it's demogoguery and slender. One side wants to makes folks comfortable in menial jobs that don't lead to sustainable careers by PROMOTING THE JOB -- not the person. And the other side makes economic arguments about the cost or viability of the "raising all boats" approach.

How about ---- a Two Tiered Min Wage. One where the emphasis is getting people OUT of menial starting jobs and into careers. Tier ONE -- with the higher wage min -- requires that the worker currently be enrolled in some (almost ANY) form of continuing Ed. Could be vocational school, getting a GED, Art School, Divinity training, or even "Life Skills" for the actually retarded. Don't really CARE what it is --- as long as the worker is committed to continuing Ed. Seniors over 65 would get an exemption to be in Tier One.

Tier Two -- is the lower min wage. And would be the base from which adjustments to either Tier are made over time. However the ratio of wages would be kept constant with adjustments.

With THIS system -- I'd be MUCH MORE inclined to generousity when it comes to APPROACHING a "living wage". Because it's no longer just promoting the job -- it's promoting the INDIVIDUAL..

Chapter Two

In a similar way, every social net is SOME form of contract. There are onerous requirements considered like drug testing or kicking Granny out of public housing because her granddaughter "dealt drugs" while visiting. This proposal is NOWHERE near as onerous.

It's simple. Families recieving TANF or EITC or any other welfare would have a stated responsibility to keep their kids in school until 12th grade graduation. They must sign report cards, be aware of truancy, respond to requests from school authorities and make EVERY effort to keep their kids status and enrollment. They need to confer about found learning disabilities, provide the necessary supplies and the BASICS.

If a child is UNMANAGEABLE and simply cannot be compelled to attend and participate (up to the age of STATE legal emancipation) they must sign a release that allows the school to reassign them or otherwise attempt to get them educated. Perhaps academies are started with the discipline and special tutoring required. Don't CARE if those are "for profit" because we're talking about literally saving lives and keeping asses out of prison..

BOTH of these concepts add new wrinkles to those battles. Gives actual long term RESULTS. And is far more designed and nuanced than any stereotypical Dem/Rep/Media approach to the issue..

So your minimum wage idea. Let's expand on that one for now.

1- Who pays the added wage?
2- For how long is someone eligible for it?
3- If they fail or don't do school. They get dropped to the lower wage?

1.) It's the same economics as for the current decades old Min Wage deal. The employer supposedly pays. But we all know -- the cost of the labor is embedded in the prices the biz charges.

2) Forever.. If you're 25 and you crawl out of your parent's basement one day and decide to go to work -- applies to you. (or they suddenly throw you out). If you're a student of any meaningful kind -- Tier one min. If not -- Tier two.. So -- if you WERE in the basement for 2 or 3 years because you already have a BA in Latin -- It still works to be taking Comm College or alternate (EMPLOYABLE) skills. However, retired folks over 65 would be exempt from the continuing Ed req. Maybe even folks over 50. Depends on the study and demographics.

3) Yup. Renewable every year. Requires proof of enrollment from whatever institution or program they are attending.

I imagine that MANY employers would kick in incentives for people NOT enrolled to GET enrolled if the market was tight at any point. Like during the times of the year when school/college kids are NOT available.

 

[HappyJoy]

Don't agree with a two tier system at all. The people a the lower tier who supposedly are lazy will get the job at a lower wage as long as they promise not to better themselves. Then, those people who can't afford to go to school in the first place because they are making minimum wage will be forced to accept the lower wage just to compete against the lower wage earners.

Jesus, just raise the minimum wage already. $12 bucks would barely be considered a living wage. More than happy to pay an extra 5 cents for a burger so that someone isn't dependent on welfare and a shitty job in order to make ends meet.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Don't agree with a two tier system at all. The people a the lower tier who supposedly are lazy will get the job at a lower wage as long as they promise not to better themselves. Then, those people who can't afford to go to school in the first place because they are making minimum wage will be forced to accept the lower wage just to compete against the lower wage earners.

Jesus, just raise the minimum wage already. $12 bucks would barely be considered a living wage. More than happy to pay an extra 5 cents for a burger so that someone isn't dependent on welfare and a shitty job in order to make ends meet.

Why don't you open a fast food joint and run it that way?

I'll be interested to see how long you stay in business.

*****CHUCKLE*****