101 problems with America

Nearly 73% of abortions in America could end tomorrow if the “Pro-life” moment actually cared about ACTUAL people (i.e life) in order to gather the funds to create an environment in which abortions were unneeded.
— 

-73% of women who get abortions cite financial reasons for their abortions, if women were supplied with an environment where their jobs and education were protected, their medical needs were fully covered and their children were guaranteed with a reasonable level of basic care upon birth that promised for a future better than the women could currently supply that would end nearly all abortion that are needed for non-medial reasons.

And it would cost only around 6billion/year or to put that in perspective 0.009% of what the US spends on killing people (military budget)

If pro-lifers really wanted to STOP abortion they’d be fighting for this world. Not one where women get jail time at best and septicemia at worse for abortions.

( destroyingfaith)

On Minimum wage and how the Economy Works

There are a lot of overly simplified posts out there talking about how by raising minimum wage less people are going to be hired therefore resulting in massive unemployment around the country and overall the economy falling apart.

And how it’s far better for a person to work for $2/hr then to have no work at all. Which to an extent for that individual is true, if not for the fact that then everyone would have to work at $2/hr and it drives wages down to the point where people are working for free for the “experience” in hopes that maybe, just maybe, if they work hard enough their work will result in a wage. (A situation we already have with unpaid internships which should be illegal as not only are they driving down the worth of work for skilled young workers but without a legal working contract put young people in dangerous situations with no worker protection.)

And apparently any wage at all will do because it’s better to get something than nothing right?

First of all these arguments are over simplifying a lot of issues, one of the main one’s being inflation. One of the biggest issues with today’s wages is that they have not risen in connection with inflation. So that spry young kid 50 years ago mowing lawns for $0.25/lawn should at least be making $2 now for it to be the exact same amount calculating simply for inflation.

That same 1964 (50 years ago) minimum wage of $1.25 would be today $9.39. With inflation set to rise another 1.5% this year, and seeing as how it takes on average 5 years for minimum wages to be adjusted, setting the minimum wage now at $10.10 is perfectly reasonable to just compete with inflation.

Now here’s to address the point of “Companies are going to raise their prices”

Companies already raise their prices to keep in check with inflation, that they then don’t already and automatically raise their minimum wage at the same time is beyond unfair to their workers (who are often also their customers) and is what causes these problems in the first place. If we connected consumer prices and worker wages to inflation people would not be in half the trouble they’re in because they would always be earning enough to supply themselves with the bare basics of survival enabling hard work to be the solution for any desire to go up the social and economic ladder.

As it stands now with federal minimum wage at $7.25 your average worker has to work 20% more just to make as much as someone did 50 years ago. So instead of working harder to get UP in life, as things should be, we’re working harder to stay in the same spot.

An article in Maclean’s magazine by Stephen Gordon summarizes the initial argument of how raising minimum wages often results in an increase in unemployment and how a $0.10 raise results in a 3~5% increase in teen unemployment.

review of such studies published in 2013 (with the studies reviewed all carried out since the year 2000) found that there is no statistically significant link between employment and minimum wage increases. A second, very recent review corroborates these results.

newly released study on the links between minimum wage increases and poverty reduction by University of Massachusetts-Amherst economist Arindrajit Dube find that raising the minimum wage decreases the poverty rate by 2%. (Which by bringing families above the poverty line would mean a lot of those teenage workers might not need those jobs to support their families anymore.)

Dube finds a 2.4% decrease in poverty rates from a 10 cent minimum wage hike, which rises to 3.6% if some passage of time between the wage increase and the poverty decrease is factored in. Very concretely, Dube estimates that the possible 39% increase in the U.S. federal minimum wage (from $7.25 to $10.10 per hour) would lift 4.6 million non-elderly Americans out of poverty in the immediate short term and 6.8 million under a longer time horizon.

Contrary to another myth, minimum wage workers are not all teenagers from rich families looking to make extra money to spend on frivolous things. Minimum wage earners make up about 5% of all workers and 50% of them are over 25 with more than 25% of these households relying on a single minimum wage earner as their main source of income.

With so many households moving out of poverty they will have the money to afford more goods and services, which would result in more employment needed to supply these people with more services allowing in the long term for more jobs. So even if a wage increase were to see an immediate drop in unemployment in the short term, in the long term it would increase again.

Certainly increasing minimum wage is simply one tool in order to deal with poverty and a poor economy. After all a good economy means money constantly flowing between the top to the bottom and back up, like the water cycle.

And I suppose this is where the strange ethics of it comes in, people believing that if you are at the top and you have everything there’s no reason for you to give any of it up to those at the bottom, and that if you want to take more there’s no reason for you not to. And on an individualistic level they’re right.

Just like on an individualistic level if you want to shit in a swimming pool and walk away that’s your prerogative too.

But by holding all that money at the top you are in the long run starving yourself out and hurting many people, and if you honestly think that’s ok then just remember the longstanding history of what happens to the people at the top who don’t care when they hurt a lot of people. Eventually the majority doesn’t care enough to put up with that anymore.

Anti-Discrimination laws an "Reseving the right to Refuse Service"

A friend of mine is making an argument on why anti-discrimination laws when it comes to business is a bad thing and for the most part I agree with her.

When it comes to private businesses I feel that business owners or wait staff should have the right to refuse service for any reason they see fit. Be it that you’re drunk or smell funny, or even that you’re black or homosexual.

Now hear me out with this one.

I’m trying to disagree with her but at the same time she makes a very compelling argument, why SHOULD a private business have to serve a clientele that they don’t want to serve? I mean certainly in the name of fairness they should, in the name of money they should but all and all why LEGALLY should they have to do it? 

They are a private business, their lively-hood comes from other people’s good will toward them. And in a manner by wearing their bigotry on their sleeve it allows the locals in that area more knowledge on the people running that business and the better ability to rightfully decide if they want to financially support someone who is a racist/sexist/homophobe. Rather then giving unwelcoming sub-par service to groups they don’t like and making them feel highly uncomfortable these groups they don’t like will know the second they enter the door that they are unwelcome and can make the choice of protesting then and there, or taking their money elsewhere to enjoy a nice lunch.

Now of course PRIVATE/PUBLIC sector businesses and EMERGENCY SERVICES shouldn’t be afforded this right because the private sector belongs to all people and doesn’t get that right and emergency services are needed by all people. So in the case of police, hospitals, schools, pharmacies, fire department, government offices, homeless shelters, etc shouldn’t be permitted to deny services of anyone.

And of course any business that receives any kind of money from the government be it grants, tax deductions, or loans should ALSO not be permitted the right to refuse service on the basis of discrimination because they are in essence taking money from ALL people as well. No matter how small the amount, the people they want to discriminate against put THEIR money into THAT business which means the business owner has become a little bit public sector. Certainly if a business wishes to refuse all government aid and still build up their business from scratch and hard work they are welcome to, and at that point they are more than welcome to deny service to whomever they want.

I certainly think it’s WRONG of businesses to discriminate.

I certainly think it’s STUPID of businesses to discriminate.

But I guess in the name of all that “American Freedom” I don’t see why it should be ILLEGAL for a singular business owner to discriminate as long as their business isn’t receiving funding from any form of public trust.

But I would be more than happy to receive more information in regards to this.

(Granted like I said before, if their business IS receiving any form of public money then they don’t get that right. You’re not allowed to take public money and then deny public service.)

youtube

Why is health care in the USA so high? And why getting a national health care will drop your taxes.

(Well it probably won’t but for the same reasons as getting rid of any government service won’t drop your taxes, because taxes stopped being about you paying into a functioning system to get group benefits a while ago.)