...the comments are worth reading as well.
Depression and other mental disorders are seldom mentioned in any political discussion regarding poverty vs success. I can remember never feeling so much dread and oppression as when I was doing some volunteer working at the Tijuana dumps. It was truly mind-numbing! Depression makes it hard to think past the moment at hand, which pretty much leaves out any ability to plan; it is non-stop survival mode if you are trying to make ends meet. A good portion of kids in our schools in the least affluent areas can be diagnosed as clinically depressed. If not treated, what is their likelihood of making anything of themselves?
We don't need to read about it, to understand it.
What false sense of psychotropic reality do you live in
Her ramblings elicit little sympathy from me, nor do I see many "good points" in the linked article, expect for perhaps a couple of the responses.
If anyone would like to see "real" poverty, try leaving the comfort of the USA where even there is no one stopping you from simply walking out of even the worst slum in order to improve your lot in life. Try going places where leaving is not an option and is enforced by men with machine guns. Then get back to me about poor people in America.
I do. That's why the Libs here like StMatt can't "guilt me" For obvious reasons I don't suffer from "white guilt" and having been homeless, living on the streets at a couple of times in my life, I also can't be guilted for my current financial status, as I know first hand what it's like to have "less than nothing"
People are sending her PayPal money. Who needs a "Looking for Work" sign and hanging out at an intersection? She has a little Elmer Gantry in her. Everybody has a skill (lol).
And it appears Mr. Martini is getting a little head, worst case a handjob, while cooking, cleaning and studying. I'm waiting for Dolly Parton to start singing "Nine to Five".
...tenements across the street from "the projects." Although I wasn't ever homeless, there were times when we were never more than one month away from being on the streets.
are a month or pay check, away from being on the streets.
Good, bad, or ugly did the unfair political policies of the past promote domestic growth?
I do believe that there are generations upon generations of depressed people, and it affects the way they see the world and themselves. It affects their motivation and thinking. My father's mother was full-blooded Native American. His father, a poor immigrant German. His mother and her family suffered unspeakable hardship, and she was depressed all of her life. Her daughter and youngest son also were depressed, and they all accepted government assistance. My father was the eldest son and more like his father than his mother. He made something of himself in spite of doing poorly in school due to dyslexia. He was angry that, after his father died, due to being suffocated when the walls of a ditch he was digging for the township collapsed, she took government aid. And, he vented his anger with his sister and younger brother when they did the same. He was the exception in the family. A person can speculate why he was, but it was not only a matter of will-power; that he had it and they did not. But, his success was not driven by good mental health, as many would assume, but rather from the pendulum swinging the the opposite direction from his mother, sister and brother; hypo-mania and major sleep disturbance.
No, I'm not trying to guilt you. However, unlike you, I don't pretend that the issue of living in poverty or not has a simple explanation. For every one exception, like you, how many are there that fall by the wayside? One can only speculate how it is you come to blame them so easily! I will do neither! 
I wanted to ask you why, you believe non-conformity is a mental illness?
BP even shits on the only thing these people have, Faith.
All I see from him is selfishness.
...it's dog eat dog in this capitalistic world.
Waiting for the Democrats to come and march you out of the valley...isn't going to help.
the minimum wage needs to be increased..It has not kept up w/inflation, and the foreign competition threat is a bogus argument....Like Paul said in the column, Americans aren't going to go to China to pick up that McDonalds burger & fries...
The founder of McDonalds and the part-time job. But his vision was high school and maybe college kids working part-time to make a few extra bucks. Now we have millions of 20, 30, 40 and 50 year old's who have no education, no skills and no competencies, and this is the best, or only job they can get. Raising the minimum wage is the least of our problems.
Just a few observations..........
There seems to be this jihad against Walmart and McDonalds. I guess they are the poster child of evil corporations. There are a number of great services/retail companies that pay good wages and benefits. Costco, Trader Joes, The Container Store, to name just a few. Even In-n-Out, my favorite fast food burger pays $10.50 an hour. There are alternatives.
With respect to McDonalds, people vilify the corporation. 90% of fast food restaurants are franchised. They are owned by a small business owner that paid $100K, $250K, $500K, whatever to open a franchise. Think of the number of employees w/in one restaurant. Think of the amount of labor cost to the business, 50%, 60%? Now double that expense and tell me how many franchises can absorb that cost? I don't think raising a Big Mac by a #1 is going to cover it.
Robert Reich, Clinton's former labor secretary, said on a local show 10 times, that Walmart made $17B last year. When you say $17B over and over again, it makes a great sound byte, and Walmart can definitely afford to pay more. Walmart's revenue last year was $470B. $17B as a percentage of $470B is 3.7%. That's not a good return for any business.
As I said, raising the minimum wage is the least of our problems.
-- Modified on 12/2/2013 6:16:22 PM
...motivated employees because they pay them well, probably better than if they were unionized. How are those companies doing that while maintaining competitive prices?
You keep posting the same myth that the price of Big Macs would have to be increased by $1.00. I've posted a link here before proving you wrong. Where's your proof?
You said Walmart's 3.7% net profit is not a good return for any business, yet supermarkets routinely operate on a 1% profit margin:
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/profit-margin-supermarket-22467.html
Why don't you ever provide proof for what you say instead of pulling shit out of your ass?
http://www.teamster.org/content/costco-workers-stand-together
Have you ever been employed by an Corporate/Teamster outfit?
Your pay and benefits package is usually a good one, but there's a lot of BS involved.
Have you been to an In-n-Out? What is the 1st thing you notice? Maybe it's the simplified menu? What does that mean vs McDonalds? THINK about it for second! Have you been to a Costco? What do you see? Limited product selection? That don't sell 10 different detergents. What does that mean? Do I have to explain their business models to you? Paying more to their employees does have some benefit, lower turnover, reduced training costs, better customer interaction.
I am in no way advocating raising or not raising the minimum wage at a McDonalds, or any other fast food franchise restaurants. The current balance sheet may be able to absorb a $1 an hour increase, but not an increase to $12 or $15 an hour. It's simple math.
Walmart's primary competitors are Target, Costco, Sams Club. Supermarkets are secondary. The current supermarket model will be gone in 10 years because of that business model, and more importantly market segmentation.
Just go to fucking Yahoo Finance, type in WMT, and look at their Income Statement. You may need a calculator.
...have to be increased by $1.00 if the minimum wage was $15./hr. Can you please provide the article you wrote in Forbes to prove this?
Here is one link from Forbes that says the increase would be .68 but then it was updated to "unknown"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2013/07/30/how-much-would-a-big-mac-cost-if-mcdonalds-workers-were-paid-15-per-hour/
Here's another opinion from Forbes that the cost of the increase to the Big Mac would be NOTHING:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/08/02/the-real-change-in-the-cost-of-a-big-mac-if-mcdonalds-workers-were-paid-15-an-hour-nothing/
We don't need no links. We are not talking about McDonalds the multinational evil corporation. We are talking about your locally owned franchised McDonalds, run by a small business owner. They will be the ones impacted by a wage increase.
What is the average annual revenue at a McDonalds? It will vary by size and location, but generally it's more than $2M a year. You can google it if you want. The info will be a bit dated by about 4 years, but still a good starting number.
Think about when you have been in McDonalds. Let's say they open at 6:00AM and close at 10:00PM. They will have peaks and lulls throughout the day, but generally speaking, how many workers do you see? Spread that over 3 shifts. Spread that over 7 days. These are not full-time, less than 30 hours, because well we don't want to pay for health care do we?
I'm thinking about 15 employees per hour. The store is open 16 hours a day which equals 240 total hours. Let's raise the minimum wage from $8 to $15. Multiply 240 X the $7 an hour increase. That comes out to a payroll increase of $1680 per day. Now multiply that by 365 days, and voila, it comes out to $613,200.
How does a franchise, a small business owner, absorb a $600K payroll hit to an annual revenue of $2M, or $3M, or even $4M? If you want to keep the bottom line the same, you either increase revenue or reduce cost. If you expect the same foot traffic, and you don't raise your prices, then you will find ways to automate functions, increase productivity, which will result in staff reduction. Why do you think fast food outlets put the drink dispenser with the customer?
This is real simple math.
...you bust my chops for not supplying links? Let's see if you're as even-handed as you claim to be. Or are you satisfied with taking the word of some fuckboard poster who has a calculator in one hand and his dick in the other?
Why doesn't the Franchise owner voluntarily pay their employees fifteen dollars an hour?
At least that's 5 minutes of my life I didn't waste trying to satisfy your need for proof.
I'm debating financial issues/performance with someone that doesn't own stocks, bonds, basically any financial instrument, and appears not to have a job. I wonder if there is any connection between your childhood poverty, well no need to make you feel any worse than you already do.
And yes, I have a calculator in one hand, and my dick in the other, which no doubt is more than you will ever have.
Do you need a link for the above?
...because you have no credibility. We're supposed to take your word? Who the fuck are you --The Professor from Gilligan's Island?
That way we can see if the quote was made in context, something you have become much better at of late, both keeping things in context AND supplying links.
You are comparing apples with oranges in St C's case however. He is making his own reasoned argument (which makes absolute sense btw) and not quoting the work of others, there is no need to provide a link to your own thoughts.
People without the business acumen to either accept or reject St C's basic premises should probably NOT get into debates about matters of business. AF is a prime example of someone without the basic business backround to make any kind of reasoned argument. TrannyBoy used to do the same, posting a link without understanding it is hardly the same as making a reasoned argument after decades of experience.
The 1% figure comes from a single reporter at national public radio. Your article then states that some experts say it's as high as 3%.
Now, I have no idea the correct number and it's obvious you don't either.
...St. Croix said was a poor return for ANY business. Don't you have a problem with that, Mr. Nit Picker? Assuming 3% is correct, isn't St. Croix full of shit for saying 3.7% is a poor return?
Now you are the one "nitpicking" that my fact doesn't matter. My fact is, you will point to anything, true or not, as long as you think it supports your issue.
Shall we play your game? OK, 3 is a hell of a lot closer to 3.7 and is 1 to 3.7. Like I said, I don't know the correct numbers for that market sector.
I didn't post to discuss that. I posted to display your modus operandi.
I do know that 1% to 4% is low when compared to many market sectors, although 3% is about average for that other market sector of interest lately, health insurance companies.
...(apparently) and he positively states 3.7% is a poor return for ANY business. A fortiori, 3% is a poorer return. How are those damn supermarkets staying in business? Or is 3% a decent return for supermarkets/Walmart?
You show your true colors - you'll never disagree with someone on your own team even when he's obviously wrong and you/he present no proof to back up your claims.
Teams? The only team I care about is not being on yours.
BTW, I have corrected the facts regarding some that you regard as not on your team.
and return on assets. These are all different ratios that ultimately determine whether a company can stay in business. Supermarket companies are the classic examples of low margin companies but their value is assessed on return on equity. Apple is a rare company with both great margins and great return on equity.
But simply taking about "return" gets you nowhere without context. And don't say I'm piling on - no one busts St. Croix more than I do, or at least tries to.
Since we know it doesn't happen all that often.
...stating that it could be 1% or up to 3%. You nitpicked the difference between 1 and 3 but the document was provided for all to see. Where is proof of St. Croix's statement that 3.7% is "not a good return for any business?" You didn't question him. You quibble with the facts in my link but you accept what some anonymous dude on a fuckboard says like it's written in stone. You're a genius.
You said: "I do know that 1% to 4% is low when compared to many market sectors, although 3% is about average for that other market sector of interest lately, health insurance companies"
Where is your proof of this statement or did you pull it out of your ass like St. Croix? Why don't you check on the supermarket business to find out that they net a penny on the dollar?
I did not nitpick anything. I pointed out how you chose to quote the 1% number from your source and then ignored the 3% number also from your source.
Then when you tried to say "so what, close enough", I reminded you that your number (1%) was not that close at all (to 3.7%).
Regarding the general desire to footnote quoted data, I find it laborious and a waste of time to footnote information that is readily attainable by anyone in just a few seconds of searching. I suppose being lazy is less of an excuse when I state I do not know something (as in PM for grocery stores), still I get lazy. After all this is not a forum for vetting doctoral dissertations. Not every thought or statement deserves a footnote.
On the other hand there is a time and place for footnotes. Plagiarizing even small quantities of text without attribution is definitely wrong. Quoting or even paraphrasing a small portion of another's complex or subtle thought without sufficient context also deserves a footnote.
Lastly, if one makes a reasoned and detailed argument even if based on things clearly labelled as assumptions, etc. there is no need to find a link to something that agrees.
There are times when it can be laborious to search for certain data. If it took me some time to find data I try to provide a link. If I forget and one requests it I will usually supply it. Hopefully I made a bookmark.
-- Modified on 12/3/2013 5:10:57 PM
Americans need to work a 40 hours a week, at $20 an hour just to be poor.
Raising the minimum wage to ten dollars an hour, is not going to cut it.
Perhaps you or someone else could tell me why inflation is so high?
Let's make it 50 dollars an hour.