# Raise of Minimum Wage



## AGill01 (Feb 19, 2013)

So just curious if you think EMS will get a raise when minimum wage is raised?


----------



## Epi-do (Feb 19, 2013)

I can say with a fair amount of certainty that my employer won't be giving out raises.  

A raise in minimum wage will just make me that much closer to qualifying for all those government programs I pay for but am not allowed to use.  The way I see it, a raise in minimum wage essentially makes my wage that much less.  In essence, it would be like getting a pay cut, but that is just how I feel about it.  I am far from a financial expert though, so I could be looking at things completely wrong.


----------



## AGill01 (Feb 19, 2013)

I completely agree with you and I have other thoughts on it too but will have to get on a soap box to discuss those thoughts


----------



## BeachMedic (Feb 19, 2013)

I'm for it. Wont make a difference though unless greedy corporate America decides to make less of a profit as opposed to just raising the prices on everything.


----------



## TB 3541 (Feb 19, 2013)

BeachMedic said:


> I'm for it. Wont make a difference though unless greedy corporate America decides to make less of a profit as opposed to just raising the prices on everything.



Which is exactly how the market works. Employers do not risk their capital to get anything less than the maximum profit return, and the government imposing new minimum wage or other regulations will never change that. 

I forgot who said it but, "capital is a coward. It goes where it feels safest." Business owners will not think twice about taking their capital to other countries if they feel it is threatened here in the U.S. and I don't blame them. 

You guys have hit it on the head: raising the minimum wage will only bring the bottom up, but it is still the bottom. Anyone making more than minimum wage now will take an indirect pay cut when prices have to go up to compensate for increased wage. 

I'll step off my soap-box now.


----------



## johnrsemt (Feb 19, 2013)

It was fun a few years ago when my employer raised their base pay for new people;  but didn't raise anyone else.   There were a few people that were making less than the new people.

   I see the same thing happening (almost)  if base pay is $9.25 and minimum wages go to $9.00   no one will go up;   but if base is $8.00hr the base has to go up a dollar.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 19, 2013)

TB 3541 said:


> I forgot who said it but, "capital is a coward. It goes where it feels safest." Business owners will not think twice about taking their capital to other countries if they feel it is threatened here in the U.S. and I don't blame them.




:rofl:

I am not going to enter the minimum wage dispute, but there is a reason jobs are outsourced and wealthy people are not flocking to move to other countries.

Take a look at the tax rates for top earners in some of the wealthiest countries in the world.


----------



## BeachMedic (Feb 19, 2013)

What greed has done to this country is a shame.

If you don't think corporate America takes a large chunk of responsibility in the destruction of the middle class...then it's safe to say you could be considered a fool.

In the 1950s dad had to be the only one that needed a job. He could afford a house, family, car, and some vacation time. Now mom and dad both have to work overtime while the CEO makes 300x(on average) their salary.

So go ahead and get on the soap box and talk about how the poor need to be paid 7.50 an hour without benefits so they can compete with Chinese children overseas being paid .50 cents a day. Capitalism doesn't benefit everyone and money is the root of all evil.


----------



## 46Young (Feb 19, 2013)

Save 10% more of your salary starting when you're 18 years old, and put it into a Defined Contribution account or IRA. Invest 100% in equities, diversify, and practice percentage based portfolio rebalancing. Those equities (stocks) are ownership in these "evil companies." Use these companies to provide you with a secure retirement.


----------



## BeachMedic (Feb 19, 2013)

First of all, really good advice in the previous post. Hard to get someone age 18 or in their early 20s to listen to it though.

What should the Indonesians, Indian, or Chinese people do? Or are they less important people than us?

Fact of the matter is, wages for the average person have not kept up with the increasing cost of living for decades now. For no good reason other than some people don't have enough G4 private jets and beachfront property.


----------



## Hunter (Feb 19, 2013)

BeachMedic said:


> What greed has done to this country is a shame.
> 
> If you don't think corporate America takes a large chunk of responsibility in the destruction of the middle class...then it's safe to say you could be considered a fool.



Or a part of Corporate America.


----------



## AGill01 (Feb 19, 2013)

Those people who are satisfied with flipping burgers all day, dropped out of school and have no interest in doing anything better with their lives will be making the same amount of money or more then I am and I had to go to school to do what I do. I knew the pay wasn't great in EMS but when we are putting our lives at stake to save others I think we deserve to get paid more then the above mentioned burger flipper. Another subject that gets me is the people who abuse the privilege of the pell grant they receive from the government. But that is another subject.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 19, 2013)

AGill01 said:


> I think we deserve to get paid more then the above mentioned burger flipper. Another subject that gets me is the people who abuse the privilege of the pell grant they receive from the government. But that is another subject.



What about the immigrant family that never had the opportunity to go to school, gave up everything they had to go to the US and are starting life over?

What about the teenage parents who dropped out of school in order to take care of their kid?

Flipping burgers is an honest job. That burger flipper does more for me more often than any EMT on the planet.


----------



## BeachMedic (Feb 19, 2013)

AGill01 said:


> Those people who are satisfied with flipping burgers all day, dropped out of school and have no interest in doing anything better with their lives will be making the same amount of money or more then I am and I had to go to school to do what I do. I knew the pay wasn't great in EMS but when we are putting our lives at stake to save others I think we deserve to get paid more then the above mentioned burger flipper. Another subject that gets me is the people who abuse the privilege of the pell grant they receive from the government. But that is another subject.



Everyone should be getting paid more. Period. 

Not just the people at the top.

Even front line folks have the right to a livable wage above the poverty line. Especially when their corporation has been raking in record profits.


----------



## TB 3541 (Feb 19, 2013)

Veneficus said:


> What about the immigrant family that never had the opportunity to go to school, gave up everything they had to go to the US and are starting life over?
> 
> What about the teenage parents who dropped out of school in order to take care of their kid?
> 
> Flipping burgers is an honest job. That burger flipper does more for me more often than any EMT on the planet.



The immigrant can go to school. 

The "teenage parent" made their decision, but can also continue their schooling. 

I think that your comment about EMS just now was very offensive. Perhaps you would rethink your comment if someone close to you is alive today because of EMTs and paramedics.


----------



## Hunter (Feb 19, 2013)

Veneficus said:


> What about the immigrant family that never had the opportunity to go to school, gave up everything they had to go to the US and are starting life over?



There's a difference between someone who can't work another job and someone who won't and has no motivation. I am that immigrant family, my parents started working for $2/hr in the back of a bakery, but they now are almost done paying off a house, have a family, and are legal citizens. There's not excuse even for these people to stay where they are. Please don't mistake it for a lack of compassion because I completely understand what they go through.



> What about the teenage parents who dropped out of school in order to take care of their kid?



Should've kept their legs closed and their ****  wrapped, sure accidents happen but even teen mothers have opportunities, no it's not easy and yes it's near impossible, but there's ways you just have to be responsible.



> Flipping burgers is an honest job. That burger flipper does more for me more often than any EMT on the planet.



No one can argue against this, but even with the average emt only going to school for 3-6 months, they deserve better pay, the job is harder, it's also more responsibility. No one says the burger flippers don't deserve to get paid, EMS should just be paid better... but that gets into education requirements ect... and we've seen plenty of those threads.


----------



## Clare (Feb 19, 2013)

Pay raise? Whats that! 

The minimum wage is likely to go up here to $14 (its $13.50 at the moment) which is bare pittance and certainly not enough to even pretend to try and survive on giving the insane cost of living.

There was a huge week long thing in the Herald about it last week, it was really interesting.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 19, 2013)

Hunter said:


> There's a difference between someone who can't work another job and someone who won't and has no motivation. I am that immigrant family, my parents started working for $2/hr in the back of a bakery, but they now are almost done paying off a house, have a family, and are legal citizens. There's not excuse even for these people to stay where they are. Please don't mistake it for a lack of compassion because I completely understand what they go through.
> 
> 
> 
> Should've kept their legs closed and their ****  wrapped, sure accidents happen but even teen mothers have opportunities, no it's not easy and yes it's near impossible, but there's ways you just have to be responsible..



But those are processes, so they need to earn something meanwhile.

and while I don't have much sympathy for people with no motivation to better themselves, I'd rather they not be so poor they cannot meet cost of living increases which will cause them to wind up on assistance.


----------



## Hunter (Feb 19, 2013)

Veneficus said:


> But those are processes, so they need to earn something meanwhile.
> 
> and while I don't have much sympathy for people with no motivation to better themselves, I'd rather they not be so poor they cannot meet cost of living increases which will cause them to wind up on assistance.



I agree but i think that the original point is that while they need to make enough to live on, EMS should be compensated at a higher level than they are. Again i could start up the whole education in EMS deal but :deadhorse:


----------



## TB 3541 (Feb 19, 2013)

Veneficus said:


> But those are processes, so they need to earn something meanwhile.
> 
> and while I don't have much sympathy for people with no motivation to better themselves, I'd rather they not be so poor they cannot meet cost of living increases which will cause them to wind up on assistance.



So what is your solution?


----------



## Hunter (Feb 19, 2013)

TB 3541 said:


> So what is your solution?



Don't raise the minimum, raise taxes on people earning more, because even them have had some sort of assistance from the government, and they aren't going to turn down Social Security to help everyone else just because they have more than enough once they retire.


----------



## BeachMedic (Feb 19, 2013)

Any solution would require the people who are really in charge..(e.g. people with a crap ton of money) to care about the rest of us.

Don't see it happening.


----------



## Clare (Feb 19, 2013)

Hunter said:


> Don't raise the minimum, raise taxes on people earning more, because even them have had some sort of assistance from the government, and they aren't going to turn down Social Security to help everyone else just because they have more than enough once they retire.



Oh please, yes, bloody rich people they are so unmoral and like hide all their money in trusts and overseas slush funds and have some slick number cruncher helping them to pay the tiniest fraction of tax possible.

The Government here does not see a problem with "legitimate tax avoidance" which I think is awful.  

Go to some job out South or even here in the nicer parts of Auckland and you will see people struggling, on minimum wage or not, they are either poor or the new "working poor" and they can barely scrape by yet these mega wealthy people are off on their boat having a nice day in the Hauraki Gulf and even if they did pay the proper amount of tax they'd still be super rich.

Makes me sick.


----------



## TB 3541 (Feb 19, 2013)

Hunter said:


> Don't raise the minimum, raise taxes on people earning more, because even them have had some sort of assistance from the government, and they aren't going to turn down Social Security to help everyone else just because they have more than enough once they retire.



When is enough enough though? In 2009 the top 10% of income earners paid 70.47% of this country's income tax revenue. The top 50% paid 97.75% of taxes. That means that half of this country's workers paid for only 2.25% of all income tax revenue. Don't you think there is something wrong with this? 

The reality of this all is that with motivation and the proper amount of determination, ANYONE can succeed in this country. Nobody has ever been told that they can't work harder. Why should we punish success (with higher taxes) and reward laziness (with gov't handouts)?


----------



## Hunter (Feb 19, 2013)

TB 3541 said:


> When is enough enough though? In 2009 the top 10% of income earners paid 70.47% of this country's income tax revenue. The top 50% paid 97.75% of taxes. That means that half of this country's workers paid for only 2.25% of all income tax revenue. Don't you think there is something wrong with this?
> 
> The reality of this all is that with motivation and the proper amount of determination, ANYONE can succeed in this country. Nobody has ever been told that they can't work harder. Why should we punish success (with higher taxes) and reward laziness (with gov't handouts)?



It's not a punishment, living in this country is what gives you the opportunities. I don't agree with government hand outs however, that's probably one of the biggest reasons we are where we are, too many people abuse the system, too many people abuse welfare, food stamps, medicare, medicaid, disability, social security, ect. I despise people who abuse the system they are scum and just as bad as big corporations who are only in it for themselves. we could probably cut spending in all those programs in half if no one abused them and everyone legitimately needed them. Which in turn would lead to less taxes being needed.


----------



## BeachMedic (Feb 19, 2013)

TB 3541 said:


> When is enough enough though? In 2009 the top 10% of income earners paid 70.47% of this country's income tax revenue. The top 50% paid 97.75% of taxes. That means that half of this country's workers paid for only 2.25% of all income tax revenue. Don't you think there is something wrong with this?
> 
> The reality of this all is that with motivation and the proper amount of determination, ANYONE can succeed in this country. Nobody has ever been told that they can't work harder. Why should we punish success (with higher taxes) and reward laziness (with gov't handouts)?




TB you have to look at where all the money is in this country. It's not in the bottom half.

To simplify things...If there is a guy with a pie that is 40 feet long/wide and he gives a 10% of his pie away and there is a guy with a 3 inch sliver of pie and he gives away 10% of his pie...Who is better off after giving that 10%? Obviously the mega-wealthy pay more in taxes. They have all the damn money to begin with. Don't you think there is something wrong with the fact that all the money in the country has been funneling straight up to the rich class over the last 30 years? Remember when Reagan started trickle down and it had the complete opposite effect?

ANYONE can succeed and ANYONE can fail in this country. NOT EVERYONE will. I can tell you there are a lot more people failing than succeeding. That doesn't mean they didn't work any less hard or had less drive than the guy who was lucky enough or who had the right connections to make it.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 19, 2013)

TB 3541 said:


> So what is your solution?



nationalize all education

edit:

and cut defense spending by at least 50%

especially weapon systems R&D.

Quit buying high tech weaponry that can't kill men in caves.


----------



## TB 3541 (Feb 19, 2013)

BeachMedic said:


> TB you have to look at where all the money is in this country. It's not in the bottom half.
> 
> To simplify things...If there is a guy with a pie that is 40 feet long/wide and he gives a 10% of his pie away and there is a guy with a 3 inch sliver of pie and he gives away 10% of his pie...Who is better off after giving that 10%? Obviously the mega-wealthy pay more in taxes. They have all the damn money to begin with. Don't you think there is something wrong with the fact that all the money in the country has been funneling straight up to the rich class over the last 30 years? Remember when Reagan started trickle down and it had the complete opposite effect?
> 
> ANYONE can succeed and ANYONE can fail in this country. NOT EVERYONE will. I can tell you there are a lot more people failing than succeeding. That doesn't mean they didn't work any less hard or had less drive than the guy who was lucky enough or who had the right connections to make it.



With all due respect, I fully understand how a flat tax works. I agree, you are correct. The data shows that wealth distribution is highest in top earners, however, understand that net wealth includes debts, which the lowest % of earners has a chronic problem with in this country. People in the lowest earning brackets still buy flat-panel TV's and other frivolous items on credit. That doesn't give them the right to take somebody else's earnings.


----------



## TB 3541 (Feb 19, 2013)

Veneficus said:


> nationalize all education
> 
> edit:
> 
> ...



I can't tell if you are serious or trolling any more.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 19, 2013)

TB 3541 said:


> I can't tell if you are serious or trolling any more.



Very serious, the US spends way too much on defense.

Considering that is known throughout the world that education is the way out of poverty for all but a very few, private education that gets "government" money in the forms of guaranteed loans, grants, and private loans that cannot be discharged creates an economic barrier to education and omits any price control. 

Shutting down fox news probably wouldn't hurt either


----------



## TB 3541 (Feb 19, 2013)

Veneficus said:


> Very serious, the US spends way too much on defense.
> 
> Considering that is known throughout the world that education is the way out of poverty for all but a very few, private education that gets "government" money in the forms of guaranteed loans, grants, and private loans that cannot be discharged creates an economic barrier to education and omits any price control.
> 
> Shutting down fox news probably wouldn't hurt either



Defense spending is provided for in the Constitution while education is not. Also, fortunately, the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights prohibits the censorship of Fox News. 

I can see that no amount of argument on my part will convince you to see my side of this, and the reverse is true as well. So let's agree to disagree, before the mods lock this thread.


----------



## BeachMedic (Feb 19, 2013)

TB 3541 said:


> With all due respect, I fully understand how a flat tax works. I agree, you are correct. The data shows that wealth distribution is highest in top earners, however, understand that net wealth includes debts, which the lowest % of earners has a chronic problem with in this country. People in the lowest earning brackets still buy flat-panel TV's and other frivolous items on credit. That doesn't give them the right to take somebody else's earnings.



With all due respect, the wealthy can pay a higher tax rate and still afford their frivolous private jets and flat screen TVs that come out of the floor.

If the poor were paid a wage above the poverty line they wouldn't have to rely on credit and government assistance as much. They might even be able to afford a decent education.

To me, it doesn't make sense that the top 10% earners have the majority of all wealth in this country. How much harder are they working than a manual field laborer or construction worker? Or Paramedic? I mean power lunches, expense accounts, and board meetings must be 10x as exhausting as a 0300 cardiac arrest.

What constitutes, "earning" a billion dollars? It's not, "hard work" or "drive". Plenty of people have those. Most just get paid less for it.


----------



## TB 3541 (Feb 19, 2013)

BeachMedic said:


> With all due respect, the wealthy can pay a higher tax rate and still afford their frivolous private jets and flat screen TVs that come out of the floor.
> 
> If the poor were paid a wage above the poverty line they wouldn't have to rely on credit and government assistance as much. They might even be able to afford a decent education.
> 
> ...



Perhaps it would be best to stop worrying about what others have, and instead, enjoy what you have. If you don't like what you have, then get a better paying job, a second job, an investment, or something else. Yes, that may take years of college education, sacrificing your day or days off, or selling an asset or not having cable TV to come up with investment capital, but if your desire to succeed exceeds your desire to stay in your comfort zone, then you will indeed, succeed.


----------



## mycrofft (Feb 19, 2013)

When the minimum wage is raised, the ones who benefit are those making mniimum wage.


----------



## Shishkabob (Feb 19, 2013)

Minimum wage goes up, costs more to have employees.    Costs more to have employees, prices of goods and services go up (at a faster rate than normal inflation) 

Raising minimum wage does more harm than they left is willing to admit.


----------



## BeachMedic (Feb 19, 2013)

TB 3541 said:


> Perhaps it would be best to stop worrying about what others have, and instead, enjoy what you have. If you don't like what you have, then get a better paying job, a second job, an investment, or something else. Yes, that may take years of college education, sacrificing your day or days off, or selling an asset or not having cable TV to come up with investment capital, but if your desire to succeed exceeds your desire to stay in your comfort zone, then you will indeed, succeed.




I'm right on track and where I want to be. Thank you though. What you're saying is nice but not only is it not true for everyone, it doesn't counter the fact that Big Business and greed are destroying this country's way of life and subjugating more and more people to poverty each year. Did you know that corporate america is making more money than it ever has? All that while laying everyone off, cutting benefits, sending jobs overseas, and shortening hours. 
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/weekinreview/09powell.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Nobody, and I mean nobody gets rich on their own. They succeed on the backs of their employees below them. The person who paved the roads for them. The guy who constructed the building their business is in. Pay them a wage that has kept up with increase in cost of living over the last 40 years. Do that and try to refrain from raises the prices on everyone else.

That is the solution. Greed wont let it happen though. Can't cut into the record profits and growing piles of cash they have laying around or the golden parachutes they attach to their buddies' backs. Corporate America much rather let the government subsidize everyone instead.

I've said my peace on this topic as well. lol


----------



## EpiEMS (Feb 19, 2013)

Anybody who tells you that (without specifying any assumptions), raising the minimum wage is "good" is stretching the truth. The same applies to anybody who tells you (without specifying any assumptions) that raising the minimum wage is "bad."

There is no simple answer. That being said, the most simplistic, justifiable answer I can think of to the question of "what happens when the minimum wage rises" is "It depends." It depends on the elasticity of labor demand, the market structure of the industry, etc. etc.

In the aggregate, I think the data suggests that it will be somewhere between slightly harmful and slightly beneficial, probably slightly harmful. Some jobs will be eliminated, as the MPL of the worker is below the now-raised minimum wage, but some workers will benefit. 

If anybody wants a real quick reference, I suggest this: http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/Hamermesh_Labor_Demand.pdf

However, I do believe that the minimum wage should have been indexed to inflation *years* ago.


----------



## mycrofft (Feb 19, 2013)

The real value in adjusted dollars of the minimum wage is declining. ON top of that, some states basically have none

Minimum wages by state law
http://progressivestates.org/sync/images/dispatch/minimumWageMap.png







Median incomes;





Children in poverty:








See any correlation?


----------



## JPINFV (Feb 19, 2013)

BeachMedic said:


> To simplify things...If there is a guy with a pie that is 40 feet long/wide and he gives a 10% of his pie away and there is a guy with a 3 inch sliver of pie and he gives away 10% of his pie...Who is better off after giving that 10%? Obviously the mega-wealthy pay more in taxes. They have all the damn money to begin with. Don't you think there is something wrong with the fact that all the money in the country has been funneling straight up to the rich class over the last 30 years? Remember when Reagan started trickle down and it had the complete opposite effect?



Everyone needs to have skin in the tax game. It's always easier to say, "Pay me more" or "They should pay more taxes" when you're talking about someone else's money.


----------



## 46Young (Feb 19, 2013)

TB 3541 said:


> So what is your solution?



Fair tax.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=HowFairTaxWorks

This way, everyone who buys anything past basic necessities cannot avoid paying into the system. If you want to save and invest, you can. If you choose to buy an expensive car, buy a big home, designer clothes, you get banged over the head for some $$$. That's the way it should be. How many stories have we heard in the ghetto where you roll into an apartment in some decrepit tenement, and inside is nice furniture, the huge flat screen, etc. Then they hand you a Medicaid card.

From the illegal aliens, to anyone working off the books while receiving assistance, to the alcoholic buying booze at 12:00 Sunday afternoon, they all now have to pay their part into the system. 

Basically, if all you pay for is the true necessities of life, you pay little to no tax. If you want to treat yourself to some treats or a dinner out, if you want to buy a computer, a car, some bling bling, you're going to pay a heavy tax. That's the most fair way to go about it, IMO.


----------



## 46Young (Feb 19, 2013)

JPINFV said:


> Everyone needs to have skin in the tax game. It's always easier to say, "Pay me more" or "They should pay more taxes" when you're talking about someone else's money.



See my last post on Fair Tax.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 20, 2013)

I like the idea of sales tax better than income tax.

That way, as 46 said, you are taxed based on your spending, which encourages savings.


----------



## abckidsmom (Feb 20, 2013)

Veneficus said:


> I like the idea of sales tax better than income tax.
> 
> That way, as 46 said, you are taxed based on your spending, which encourages savings.



Absolutely.


----------



## Hunter (Feb 20, 2013)

Veneficus said:


> I like the idea of sales tax better than income tax.
> 
> That way, as 46 said, you are taxed based on your spending, which encourages savings.



I like this much better than overall taxes...


----------



## JPINFV (Feb 20, 2013)

Veneficus said:


> I like the idea of sales tax better than income tax.
> 
> That way, as 46 said, you are taxed based on your spending, which encourages savings.




Except economies run on spending and circulation of currency. Spending can be bad for the individual, but as a whole, it's good for everyone as a group. As much as people despise the mega rich when they do things like buy yachts, those yachts put a lot of people to work who otherwise might not have work.


----------



## BeachMedic (Feb 20, 2013)

JPINFV said:


> Except economies run on spending and circulation of currency. Spending can be bad for the individual, but as a whole, it's good for everyone as a group. As much as people despise the mega rich when they do things like buy yachts, those yachts put a lot of people to work who otherwise might not have work.



I don't know if that number is comparable to the number of people they put out of work by sending jobs to third world countries.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 20, 2013)

BeachMedic said:


> I don't know if that number is comparable to the number of people they put out of work by sending jobs to third world countries.



I think JP is correct, except that we now live in a global economy. 

Unfortunately the days of earning a middle class life with minimal education are over. Because of globalization, skilled and unskilled labor wages in the US are realigning to their actual value. 

Changes in minimum wage will not change that.

About the only thing that will change that I can see is an anti-import position, giving goods produced in the country a financial benefit than good shipped to the country. 

While that inhibits trade, it does lessen trade deficits. Unfortunately, It doesn't work so well with consumerism and forces people to accept "lower" quality of life. Like not getting the new iphone every year or 2 or latest electronics.

At this point I doubt Americans would accept any decline in consumerism. Certainly they will not choose it. Which is why big box stores do so well.


----------



## BeachMedic (Feb 20, 2013)

Veneficus said:


> I think JP is correct, except that we now live in a global economy.
> 
> Unfortunately the days of earning a middle class life with minimal education are over. Because of globalization, skilled and unskilled labor wages in the US are realigning to their actual value.
> 
> ...



Well like you said, the key is getting access for everyone to an affordable and decent education.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 20, 2013)

BeachMedic said:


> Well like you said, the key is getting access for everyone to an affordable and decent education.



Yea, except I didn't make it up, it has been known around the world for centuries. It is a fundamental component of every wealthy country.

But in the US there seems to be a prevailing attitude that it is not needed because of a handful of success stories or perhaps simply the desire to deny the obviousness of the truth by those who do not have education. 

I always love the "destruction of the middle class" argument. Look at the low class standard of living in places like Sweden. They have almost no middle class to speak of. But the difference between wealthy and poor is very narrow too.

I think the US predicament comes from the fantasy that everyone can be the exception rather than the rule.


----------



## Wheel (Feb 20, 2013)

Veneficus said:


> Yea, except I didn't make it up, it has been known around the world for centuries. It is a fundamental component of every wealthy country.
> 
> But in the US there seems to be a prevailing attitude that it is not needed because of a handful of success stories or perhaps simply the desire to deny the obviousness of the truth by those who do not have education.
> 
> ...



Do you mean to tell me I'm NOT a special snowflake?


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 20, 2013)

TB 3541 said:


> Defense spending is provided for in the Constitution while education is not.



I believe you are incorrect sir.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, *promote the general Welfare*, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


----------



## BeachMedic (Feb 20, 2013)

Veneficus said:


> Yea, except I didn't make it up, it has been known around the world for centuries. It is a fundamental component of every wealthy country.
> 
> But in the US there seems to be a prevailing attitude that it is not needed because of a handful of success stories or perhaps simply the desire to deny the obviousness of the truth by those who do not have education.
> 
> ...



Well you hit the nail on the head Ven.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?hp&_r=0

The loss upward mobility in our country. The poor in our country are worse off than the poor in most other advanced countries. If you're looking for the, "Land of Opportunity" look elsewhere, because the U.S. is too low on the list these days. The Myth of the American Dream has been outsourced.

At least until we fix our broken systems like healthcare, education, and revolving door prison scheme. You know, even the playing field and give everyone a better chance.


----------



## Shishkabob (Feb 20, 2013)

BeachMedic said:


> At least until we fix our broken systems like healthcare,


  Not a federal system, leave it to the states per the 10th.



> education


  Agreed, but the bigger issue is kids not caring, like in the ghetto.  We still have some of the top colleges in the world.  



> and revolving door prison scheme.


  Simple.  Do away with the 3 strike rule, implement the 2 strike rule.  First felony can be played off as a mistake in some circumstances... the second one cannot.  Doing a second strikeable felony proves you are of no use to society and we need to get rid of you.


----------



## BeachMedic (Feb 20, 2013)

Linuss said:


> Agreed, but the bigger issue is kids not caring, like in the ghetto.  We still have some of the top colleges in the world.



Yeah but unlike the rest of the world our top colleges saddle people with thousands and thousands of dollars of debt.

That and the high price keeps a lot of people from attending these schools.


----------



## Shishkabob (Feb 20, 2013)

BeachMedic said:


> That and the high price keeps a lot of people from attending these schools.


One step at a time.  Highschool is free, yet 10% of blacks and 15% of hispanic kids drop out, with a good portion never even obtaining a GED.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 20, 2013)

Linuss said:


> One step at a time.  Highschool is free, yet 10% of blacks and 15% of hispanic kids drop out, with a good portion never even obtaining a GED.



So what is your solution to change the socioeconomic and cultural causes of this?


----------



## Shishkabob (Feb 20, 2013)

All I know is that the New Deal has had 80 years to do it's thing, and it hasn't.  


Just like the immigration reform... oh sure it sounds good in theory, makes illegals actually legal and they'll pay taxes, except for one thing liberals like to ignore:  Illegals will not be paying in to the system due to the current tax code, but will be legally entitled to more welfare programs.



It's like Obamas argument for Obamacare:  More people paying for insurance makes it cheaper for the rest of us... yet he doesn't want everyone to do their fair share of taxes.  We wants the fortunate to pay while the rest skate on by.


----------



## JPINFV (Feb 20, 2013)

BeachMedic said:


> I don't know if that number is comparable to the number of people they put out of work by sending jobs to third world countries.


 

...so instead they should just put their money in the bank, where under a sales tax the government gets nothing and the primary beneficient is the investment bankers? Limiting their ability to make purchases isn't going to change the business practices short of going all John Galt and disappearing.


----------



## JPINFV (Feb 20, 2013)

Veneficus said:


> While that inhibits trade, it does lessen trade deficits. Unfortunately, It doesn't work so well with consumerism and forces people to accept "lower" quality of life. Like not getting the new iphone every year or 2 or latest electronics.


 
It's also not like the other countries aren't going to retaliate. Sure, cheap assembly line consume crud like electronics aren't produced in the US. That doesn't mean we don't export a ton and that also doesn't mean that people would support higher prices for everyday goods. Protectionism isn't some panacia to our trade issues.


----------



## BeachMedic (Feb 20, 2013)

Linuss said:


> We wants the fortunate to pay while the rest skate on by.



I wouldn't call someone living in poverty and paycheck to paycheck just, "skating on by". 

Show me some statistical evidence of nationalized healthcare being a detriment to any of the modern world countries. I want real evidence. Anecdotal, "My auntie had to wait in line for medicine" stories are worthless.

I want you to explain to me how someone breaking an arm or leg and then going thousands of dollars in to debt because of it makes sense. Or mom getting cancer, or any number of terrible medical scenarios that happen to real people every day that just ruins them financially. Or why we are paying over $100 dollars for prescriptions you can get in Canada for $15?

No offense Linuss, but I find it hard to understand why you have so much sympathy for people making over $450,000 (the tax increase people) a year but none for large chunk of your countrymen wallowing in poverty.


----------



## RocketMedic (Feb 20, 2013)

Heck, everyone has to wait in line. It's not like triage for serious medical concerns is a problem anyway, emergency medicine works for the masses regardless of how much people make. Unless you're in a hyper-affluent area where there is literally a hospital only for rich folks (we've got them here, but they're not emergency hospitals), health care is an equalizer. 

The rich simply tend to need less of it due to healthier lifestyles.


----------



## Christopher (Feb 20, 2013)

TB 3541 said:


> I forgot who said it but, "capital is a coward. It goes where it feels safest." Business owners will not think twice about taking their capital to other countries if they feel it is threatened here in the U.S. and I don't blame them.



This is the truth, but only for capital expenditures which are flexible in locale. EMS is lucky in this regard in that it is a local capital expenditure. Much like plumbing or carpentry or emergency medicine.

You currently can't outsource your EMS to Mexico or India...you'd have to import workers on a work visa. Or pay folks under the table.

Thankfully for EMS, we won't see this happen for two reasons:

1. We're held in such low regard that you won't see a class of visas carved out for foreign EMT's and Paramedics.
2. The requirements to be an EMT or Paramedic varies so greatly from State to State that most foreign nationals wishing to work for beans have no hope of getting reciprocity.

Due to the inability to transfer work outside the area where it is generated coupled with a myriad of hyperlocal regulations, you will likely never have to worry about the "outsourcing" of EMS or "EMS capital".


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 20, 2013)

JPINFV said:


> It's also not like the other countries aren't going to retaliate. Sure, cheap assembly line consume crud like electronics aren't produced in the US. That doesn't mean we don't export a ton and that also doesn't mean that people would support higher prices for everyday goods. Protectionism isn't some panacia to our trade issues.



I never suggested that it was a panacea or that other countries wouldn't retaliate.

I also don't think Americans would be amiable to pay more for goods.

I do suggest that a better balace be reached.


----------



## Aidey (Feb 20, 2013)

Lets keep this discussion to EMS wages and how they may be affected by changes in the minimum wage. I'm going to start getting real cranky real quick if this turns into a healthcare debate or a liberal vs conservative debate.


----------



## Christopher (Feb 20, 2013)

Aidey said:


> Lets keep this discussion to EMS wages and how they may be affected by changes in the minimum wage.



Simple: if you're below the new minimum wage you will receive a raise. If you are not below the new minimum wage, you probably will not.

It can possibly lead to wage lagging for older hires when compared to newer hires who start at a higher initial pay.


----------



## fortsmithman (Feb 20, 2013)

Rocketmedic40 said:


> The rich simply tend to need less of it due to healthier lifestyles.



I can think of a few rich people who do not lead healthy lives
Charlie Sheen
Lindsay Lohan


If you want to up wages that is earned by EMS in the USA increase the education requirement needed and have more govt run EMS like it is in just about everywhere else on this planet.


----------



## Aidey (Feb 20, 2013)

Christopher said:


> Simple: if you're below the new minimum wage you will receive a raise. If you are not below the new minimum wage, you probably will not.
> 
> It can possibly lead to wage lagging for older hires when compared to newer hires who start at a higher initial pay.



If companies are forced to start at a higher initial pay, won't some of them probably just not give raises for a while to make up for it? So instead of getting a raise every year, you might not get a raise until you've worked there 3 years.


----------



## EpiEMS (Feb 20, 2013)

Christopher said:


> Simple: if you're below the new minimum wage you will receive a raise. If you are not below the new minimum wage, you probably will not.
> 
> It can possibly lead to wage lagging for older hires when compared to newer hires who start at a higher initial pay.



Hold on, though: employers can also fire people, cut their hours, etc.
There are lots of demand-side responses that can occur on a micro level.


----------



## TB 3541 (Feb 21, 2013)

46Young said:


> Fair tax.
> 
> http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=HowFairTaxWorks
> 
> ...



I do like this solution. I don't know how far it will get though because politicians will see this as a massive decrease in tax revenue to them, even if it is truly the same.


----------



## TB 3541 (Feb 21, 2013)

Veneficus said:


> I believe you are incorrect sir.
> 
> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, *promote the general Welfare*, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.



Promoting the general welfare means something different to me than what it means to you. As much as I love to debate, I don't think that anyone would appreciate this portion of the debate going further on this forum.


----------



## JPINFV (Feb 21, 2013)

TB 3541 said:


> Promoting the general welfare means something different to me than what it means to you. As much as I love to debate, I don't think that anyone would appreciate this portion of the debate going further on this forum.


Cough ...

here...

cough...


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 21, 2013)

Wheel said:


> Do you mean to tell me I'm NOT a special snowflake?



I guess you haven't heard that there is a limited pattern of snowflakes based on the the chemical formation of chyrstal structures?

(Damn those scientists again...)


----------



## Christopher (Feb 21, 2013)

Aidey said:


> If companies are forced to start at a higher initial pay, won't some of them probably just not give raises for a while to make up for it? So instead of getting a raise every year, you might not get a raise until you've worked there 3 years.



Wage freezes are very common, regardless of minimum wage changes. Outside of bigger companies, I'd wager the majority of hourly workers see few pay increases without a change in job title/description.


----------



## Christopher (Feb 21, 2013)

EpiEMS said:


> Hold on, though: employers can also fire people, cut their hours, etc.
> There are lots of demand-side responses that can occur on a micro level.



Hours of operation are fairly inelastic for 911 EMS services. Hours of operation for IFT EMS services on the other hand...

Most private 911 companies typically pay above the minimum wage anyways, so this will be a non-issue. Where you'd see the firing/hour reductions is on the IFT side and hiring/wage freezes on the 911 side.


----------



## EpiEMS (Feb 21, 2013)

Christopher said:


> Hours of operation are fairly inelastic for 911 EMS services. Hours of operation for IFT EMS services on the other hand...
> 
> Most private 911 companies typically pay above the minimum wage anyways, so this will be a non-issue. Where you'd see the firing/hour reductions is on the IFT side and hiring/wage freezes on the 911 side.



Yep, that's what I was thinking -- I can't imagine that most 911 is run at the minimum wage (or below the proposed increase).


----------



## jd3123 (Feb 21, 2013)

can't believe how many people here thinks raising taxes is our solution. These "evil" rich guys here in ny are paying 60% taxes, same in cali and jersey. Three of the worst economies in our country right there. Close loop holes and lowers taxes so you encourage businesses to invest in the u.s. You want to see how a functioning economy runs? look at Texas best run state by far and it is not close. When you have 17 trillion in debt I think it is time to look at our spending problem and what is the biggest cause of our debt? entitlements. And anyone who thinks the rich should pay more then 60% of *THERE *money is immoral.


----------



## jd3123 (Feb 21, 2013)

Most reckless idea ever, we are the most hated country in the world and you want to cut defense by 50? just little over ten years after 911?





Veneficus said:


> nationalize all education
> 
> edit:
> 
> ...


----------



## NYMedic828 (Feb 21, 2013)

jd3123 said:


> Most reckless idea ever, we are the most hated country in the world and you want to cut defense by 50? just little over ten years after 911?



You realize we already possess more high tech/super powered weapons than almost every other nation combined and have enough firepower to blow up the planet 100x over at the push of a button?

The next countries in line behind us in the arms race are our allies... 

What more do you need that we need to continue to spend hundreds of billions a year. With that much money spent we should have a death star by now...


----------



## jd3123 (Feb 21, 2013)

NYMedic828 said:


> You realize we already possess more weapons than almost every other nation combined and have enough firepower to blow up the planet 100x over at the push of a button?
> 
> What more do you need that we need to continue to spend hundreds of billions a year. With that much money spent we should have a death star by now...



yup but we need defense, after 911 we need to do whatever it takes to keep us safe.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Feb 21, 2013)




----------

