Seattle raises minimum wage to $15/hr

[Bubbles]

 

[Bogtrotter07]

This.

It's always some sort of pie in the sky Utopian solution that fails utterly when it meets reality.

RDU and Bishop, a chara,

Below is a graph of the European unemployment rates. I named three or four European countries that had higher minimum wages. Care to guess where they are on the graph below?

I have been tired of conflation (Netherlands for European), let alone other problems, (youth unemployment is much worse everywhere because of the banking fiasco), let alone the condescending approach that some people take with their oversimplistic approaches to complex issues. I do not claim to have any answers, but when I bring up a point, I think it has enough legs to it to discuss seriously. My advice for all those that think they have the answers is that maybe they don't have smart enough questions.

Sincerely and frankly.

Beir bua agus beannacht,

Bogs



PS. Just for an American comparison :

Unemployment

The number of unemployed youth in July 2013 was 3.8 million, compared with 4.0 million
a year ago. The youth unemployment rate was 16.3 percent in July 2013. Among the major
demographic groups, unemployment rates were lower than a year earlier in July for young
women (14.8 percent) and whites (13.9 percent), while jobless rates changed little for
young men (17.6 percent), blacks (28.2 percent), Asians (15.0 percent), and Hispanics
(18.1 percent). (See table 2.)

Maybe if we lowered the minimum wage rate further for minorities that would result in higher minority employment! No, wait a minute. We tried that. Repealed with the 13th Amendment.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Bogs, the point is that when you force people to pay more for a product or service than it's actually worth (regardless of how noble or good-intentioned your reasons), you violate the basic laws of economics, and there are always far-reaching and usually very negative consequences. There are countless examples of people trying to change prices, taxes, wages, etc. yet believing that spending or hiring habits will stay the same. They don't. The results are always disastrous in the long run.

If you force business owners to pay under-educated or entry-level workers more than they are actually worth, the result will ultimately be very bad. You'll find that businesses will hire half as many people and work them twice as hard, costs of products or services will go up significantly, or businesses will simply relocate. You WILL NOT have the same number of people employed to the same degree, but now making nearly twice as much. There's no getting around the law of supply & demand, and a thing or service is only worth exactly as much as someone is willing to pay for it.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Maybe if we lowered the minimum wage rate further for minorities that would result in higher minority employment! No, wait a minute. We tried that. Repealed with the 13th Amendment.

You're missing a key point. Nobody forces you to work for $1/hr or $8/hr or any other wage. It's not slavery. It's voluntary. If you don't like the wages someone is offering, look elsewhere for employment where they pay more. If you don't have the education or skills to command more, who's fault is that? Improve your skills or increase your education. Be a more valuable commodity in the employment market so that you can earn more.

The vast majority of low wage earners in this country are either entry-level employees doing just that - gaining the skills to become higher wage earners - or they're people who have made countless poor decisions in their lives about their own education, learning a higher-paid skill, or building a track record as a good employee.

You take somebody who goofed off in school, stayed stoned half the time, spent their free time playing video games instead of studying, has 4 kids by 3 different mothers/fathers, and never put any effort into working their way up the ladder or becoming a good employee at any of their previous jobs... why should the rest of us have to supplement that person's income, pay them more than they're worth, or pay twice as much for a product so they can have a better life? They screwed themselves. Actions and behavior have consequences.

 

[Domina Nostra]

The Swiss have no minium wage, that must be why they have so much poverty!

I do think there are not enough good jobs for people who don't have advanced education. I just don't think this is the answer.

 

[Irish#1]

McDonalds and other huge corporations are (quietly) in favor of many minimum wage adjustments because it harms small businesses. An increase in the minimum wage would result in a mere fraction of McDonalds profit being lost.

You, as a taxpayer, should be upset that these corporations are paying their employees so little that they received government aid while the corporation profits immensely. In these situations, welfare and such are as much of a handout to the 1% as they are to the bottom X%.

This is true, because it doesn't effect them like it will the franchise owner. The lost revenue will be felt by the franchise and they will raise prices to make up the difference. Two other ways to compensate for lost revenue is to layoff employees or increase traffic. They won't be increasing traffic to the store.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Bogs, the point is that when you force people to pay more for a product or service than it's actually worth (regardless of how noble or good-intentioned your reasons), you violate the basic laws of economics, and there are always far-reaching and usually very negative consequences. There are countless examples of people trying to change prices, taxes, wages, etc. yet believing that spending or hiring habits will stay the same. They don't. The results are always disastrous in the long run.

If you force business owners to pay under-educated or entry-level workers more than they are actually worth, the result will ultimately be very bad. You'll find that businesses will hire half as many people and work them twice as hard, costs of products or services will go up significantly, or businesses will simply relocate. You WILL NOT have the same number of people employed to the same degree, but now making nearly twice as much. There's no getting around the law of supply & demand, and a thing or service is only worth exactly as much as someone is willing to pay for it.

You are missing the point. Paying people more does not directly translate, or in many cases even indirectly translate into a higher product cost. Period.

You're missing a key point. Nobody forces you to work for $1/hr or $8/hr or any other wage. It's not slavery. It's voluntary. If you don't like the wages someone is offering, look elsewhere for employment where they pay more. If you don't have the education or skills to command more, who's fault is that? Improve your skills or increase your education. Be a more valuable commodity in the employment market so that you can earn more.

The vast majority of low wage earners in this country are either entry-level employees doing just that - gaining the skills to become higher wage earners - or they're people who have made countless poor decisions in their lives about their own education, learning a higher-paid skill, or building a track record as a good employee.

You take somebody who goofed off in school, stayed stoned half the time, spent their free time playing video games instead of studying, has 4 kids by 3 different mothers/fathers, and never put any effort into working their way up the ladder or becoming a good employee at any of their previous jobs... why should the rest of us have to supplement that person's income, pay them more than they're worth, or pay twice as much for a product so they can have a better life? They screwed themselves. Actions and behavior have consequences.

I cannot tell you how many hot shots around my age from this area, (or from the pool of talent I knew across the nation for that matter), that I run into or see postings of as teacher aids or workers in big box stores now. These are people with advanced degrees that because of their age or circumstances can't get anything better than what you call minimum wage. And they may be among the luckier ones. I also have friends that can't get a job as a burger jockey because they are too overqualified. Do me a favor, if you live in anything but the hottest job market, don't turn fifty and ever write a proposal about how to save you company labor expense. Or you may starve on your own beliefs . . .

I actually have an acquaintance that did that. His company shut down the plant here on his recommendation and went off shore. When that failed because the lower cost labor couldn't produce a good enough quality product, they still didn't re-hire him back. They used lower priced local replacements that they could get cheaper than their former twenty year man. (Yes they did tell him they were transferring him, but oh darned, that fell through!)

 

[AvesEvo]

You are missing the point. Paying people more does not directly translate, or in many cases even indirectly translate into a higher product cost. Period.

Why wouldn't it?

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Why wouldn't it?

Low labor versus higher labor is only one variable in the equation for the production cost of an item.

Better quality and happier employees almost always produce more and better.

The cost argument was used at the time of the 40 standard work week implementation, time and a half and double time pay standards, implementation of work safety equipment, child labor, child labor now on tobacco farms, etc. It is invalid. Always.

My grandpa was wrong when he said that the forty hour week would ruin his factories.

He wasn't wrong when he insisted on installing safety equipment, better lighting and ventilation in his factories. But he had a lot of pressure from others (peers) to buck to sell that argument. It is the same thing.

The facts always bear out doing the right thing, and taking better care of people always pays. (I didn't say anything about handouts, etc.()

 

[Bishop2b5]

Bogs, there's a HUGE difference between hiring unskilled lost cost labor and better skilled labor that commands a higher wage. We're talking about businesses being forced to pay that higher wage, not to the better skilled employees who are worth it, but to the unskilled ones just because somebody decided they needed more pay... not that they were actually worth it.

A person's skills, a product, or a service are only worth what someone is willing, in a free to choose or not to choose market, to pay for it. Period. Anything else is an artificial inflation of its cost, not its worth. Please justify to me why a low-skilled worker whose effort is only worth X amount per hour should earn more than that. If he wants more, he should increase his worth by increasing his skills and making himself worth more to his employer.

If I have a used car I want to sell for $2000 and you're willing to pay that for it, great. Should you be forced to pay $3000 for it just because I need the extra $1000? If I want $3000 for it I should clean it up, make some repairs, maybe have taken better care of it. It's not your responsibility to pay more than it's worth to you. Same with wages.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Bogs, most of us are more than glad to help someone who's hit a roadblock in their life, fallen on hard times and needs a hand back up, or help someone who is unable to meet their basic needs such as a disabled person or a child. What we aren't interested in doing is subsidizing the life of someone who's made poor decisions and failed to take advantage of the opportunities life has handed them. I'm not the least bit willing to support someone who has made one dumb decision after another in regards to their lifestyle, work ethic, education, etc. Insulating idiots from the consequences of their actions is a losing proposition and just encourages them to continue making poor choices. If the people in Seattle want more pay, fine. Earn it. Make themselves worth it. Get an education, learn some skills, work harder, make better decisions about their career. I know lots of people who came from poverty and rose to wealth and success by working hard, choosing a career wisely, getting an education, making themselves indispensable to their employer, and avoiding the pitfalls that trap a person in poverty. It's not their job to then have to subsidize those who didn't make the same effort.

 

[Woneone]

Low labor versus higher labor is only one variable in the equation for the production cost of an item.

Better quality and happier employees almost always produce more and better.

The cost argument was used at the time of the 40 standard work week implementation, time and a half and double time pay standards, implementation of work safety equipment, child labor, child labor now on tobacco farms, etc. It is invalid. Always.

My grandpa was wrong when he said that the forty hour week would ruin his factories.

He wasn't wrong when he insisted on installing safety equipment, better lighting and ventilation in his factories. But he had a lot of pressure from others (peers) to buck to sell that argument. It is the same thing.

The facts always bear out doing the right thing, and taking better care of people always pays. (I didn't say anything about handouts, etc.()

How do you speak in such absolutes? A case (albeit, the case against any minimum wage at all I would say is even stronger than one for an increase) can be made for an increase, but it is far from some proven economic theory.

Western European Countries who have legislation that makes it unlawful to employ workers whose hourly productivity is below some minimum level arbitrarily dictated by government officials. (his distinction from having a minimum wage, not mine).

A study of Youth Unemployement and Minimum Wage (uses France as an example).

Again, theory stating that Minimum Wage does in fact affect unemployment.

All the articles I've read suggest we're missing the point. We're fixated on the dollar amount per hour someone earns and it's affect. That doesn't seem to be the issue. The issue seems to be the amount eared on minimum wage as a percentage of the average wage in a country. Also, the time period said increase occurs.

At 45-50% of the average wage, unemployement is affected (The minimum wage is too high).

We're talking about, overnight, going from 30% of the average wage to 60% (is my math right?). That's pretty drastic, and it's unrealistic to think no negative impact will follow.

Edit: Should really learn how to read my own sources - 45 to 50%.

 

[AvesEvo]

Bogs, there's a HUGE difference between hiring unskilled lost cost labor and better skilled labor that commands a higher wage. We're talking about businesses being forced to pay that higher wage, not to the better skilled employees who are worth it, but to the unskilled ones just because somebody decided they needed more pay... not that they were actually worth it.

A person's skills, a product, or a service are only worth what someone is willing, in a free to choose or not to choose market, to pay for it. Period. Anything else is an artificial inflation of its cost, not its worth. Please justify to me why a low-skilled worker whose effort is only worth X amount per hour should earn more than that. If he wants more, he should increase his worth by increasing his skills and making himself worth more to his employer.

If I have a used car I want to sell for $2000 and you're willing to pay that for it, great. Should you be forced to pay $3000 for it just because I need the extra $1000? If I want $3000 for it I should clean it up, make some repairs, maybe have taken better care of it. It's not your responsibility to pay more than it's worth to you. Same with wages.

It isn't a free market though. A worker simply can't say "I'm not going to work for you" when jobs aren't available and they don't have any savings, they would starve. This is the situation and it is ripe for exploitation.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Dear Seattle,

Enjoy the massive unemployment you're about to face among entry-level workers. I'm sure that in a couple of years a lot of those people would gladly accept an $8/hr job over a non-existent $15/hr job. Lots of new businesses simply won't locate to your area. Lots of existing businesses will relocate. Kiss those jobs goodbye.

Yours Truly,

Anyone who's ever taken ECON 101

One of the most common criticisms of Austrians is that they take an entry-level economics class and unintentionally inflate how much knowledge they have on the matter. And here we are "anyone who's ever taken ECON 101."

 

[yankeehater]

So, Boeing is going to move it's Seattle operations in protest to a (graduated) pay increase to its minimum wage workers? Who would those might be? Cafeteria line workers? Janitorial staff? Mail delivery staff? [Do they still exist???] Parking garage attendants?

Gimme a break! The expense incurred in picking up and moving its facilities, lock stock and barrel, would far outweigh the cost of paying the small percentage of their employees at minimum wage a bit more.

Sheesh!

Maybe a Starbucks employee could afford a triple mocha latte grande Amaretto espresso fizz.

Remember Boeing will soon have a completely empty facility here in Long Beach with a lot of qualified workers looking for employment. Granted the idiots in Sacramento are a reason that facility will be empty so might not be a much better option.

 

[Buster Bluth]

You're missing a key point. Nobody forces you to work for $1/hr or $8/hr or any other wage. It's not slavery. It's voluntary. If you don't like the wages someone is offering, look elsewhere for employment where they pay more. If you don't have the education or skills to command more, who's fault is that? Improve your skills or increase your education.

Reading this just makes me sad. I remember the days when I believed each person actually get out of life what they put in, and that we are nothing more than individuals in our own little bubble. Then it hit me one day, the realization that we live in a society and the fortunes and actions of my neighbor do affect me so I should, at a minimum, be concerned about how well the system (that's not being used as a synonym for government) is churning out success stories.

Be a more valuable commodity in the employment market so that you can earn more.

You don't read much about wage stagnation, globalization, and automation do you?

The vast majority of low wage earners in this country are either entry-level employees doing just that - gaining the skills to become higher wage earners - or they're people who have made countless poor decisions in their lives about their own education, learning a higher-paid skill, or building a track record as a good employee.

"Low wage earners" seems pretty broad, and "countless poor decisions in their lives about their own education" is just a really stupid way to brush off the issue.

You take somebody who goofed off in school, stayed stoned half the time, spent their free time playing video games instead of studying, has 4 kids by 3 different mothers/fathers, and never put any effort into working their way up the ladder or becoming a good employee at any of their previous jobs...

The sad thing is you probably think every poor person is some combination of these factors, and that's that. Just fucking pathetic on your part.

why should the rest of us have to supplement that person's income, pay them more than they're worth, or pay twice as much for a product so they can have a better life? They screwed themselves.

And here is where I get enraged. Your willingness to assume that the "vast majority" are just lazy jackoffs on drugs who just can't stop stepping on their own dicks. "They screwed themselves." Fucking Christ man..

Your overall lack of empathy is disturbing, and I hope you don't have the nerve to tell someone that you're a Christian.

Actions and behavior have consequences.

You don't read much history do you?

 

[dshans]

Remember Boeing will soon have a completely empty facility here in Long Beach with a lot of qualified workers looking for employment. Granted the idiots in Sacramento are a reason that facility will be empty so might not be a much better option.

Is that because Boeing was "forced" to pay a decent minimum wage and chose to move facilities to some "right to work" state? Or is it because the facility is no longer deemed necessary? Will the same, full scale operation suddenly appear in Mississippi?

Or is it because Boeing is downsizing in general due to diminished demand?

 

[Bishop2b5]

Buster, I believe you're responsible for your own actions and the consequences that come from them, good or bad, just as I am for my own. That doesn't mean I don't care about those around me, nor does it mean I'm not willing to voluntarily help someone. It means I don't believe you or anyone else (or the government by proxy) has the right to force me to give up my hard-earned money to help someone who has shown no willingness to work as hard as I have or someone who has consistently made poor life choices and brought their situation upon themselves. I'm all for charity, but I'm totally against being forced to financially protect someone from the consequences of their bad decisions.

You tell me what you think causes poverty. I'm not talking about the poor person in a hellhole of a third world country where no opportunities exist. I'm talking about here in the US where a free education through HS is provided, and where anyone who takes full advantage of that can then earn scholarships for a university education. Is it just bad luck? Is it someone else's fault? Do you really not think there's an overwhelming correlation between teen pregnancy, lack of education, poor life choices, choosing immediate gratification over long-term reward, etc., and poverty? Most people who make those sort of bad decisions or who aren't willing to work hard enough or put off immediate gratification stay poor. Most who make good decisions, work hard, get an education, and work tirelessly to improve their value in the work place rise out of poverty.

You're responsible for your own fate. Make your choices and be willing to live with the consequences. It's not anyone else's responsibility to support you and cover for your mistakes. If they choose to voluntarily, that's fine, but by what right do you demand someone else support you through welfare, artificially inflated wages, or anything else of that nature?

If you feel so strongly that people deserve more than their skills, education, or productivity merit, why don't you simply add a few dollars to your bill every time you buy something, stipulating that the extra money should be shared by the business' underpaid employees? Volunteer your own money if you really believe that, not mine. I believe that if they want more, they should do something to make their labor worth more.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Reading this just makes me sad. I remember the days when I believed each person actually get out of life what they put in, and that we are nothing more than individuals in our own little bubble. Then it hit me one day, the realization that we live in a society and the fortunes and actions of my neighbor do affect me so I should, at a minimum, be concerned about how well the system (that's not being used as a synonym for government) is churning out success stories.



You don't read much about wage stagnation, globalization, and automation do you?



"Low wage earners" seems pretty broad, and "countless poor decisions in their lives about their own education" is just a really stupid way to brush off the issue.



The sad thing is you probably think every poor person is some combination of these factors, and that's that. Just fucking pathetic on your part.



And here is where I get enraged. Your willingness to assume that the "vast majority" are just lazy jackoffs on drugs who just can't stop stepping on their own dicks. "They screwed themselves." Fucking Christ man..

Your overall lack of empathy is disturbing, and I hope you don't have the nerve to tell someone that you're a Christian.



You don't read much history do you?

We knew you were the smartest guy in every room you entered. Had no idea you were the holiest and most pious to go along with it!

Stagnation, globalization, and automation have NO correlation to a lot of people making really poor decisions (starting a family without having means to provide aka Wal Mart or McDonald's being your primary income).

I'm 29 next month, I make decent money (not six figures), still paying off college debt and a car (as is my girlfriend of 2 years), and don't know if we could afford a child right now. Could probably do it, but it'd be extremely tight. The idea that person A is entitled to a certain wage because of their circumstances is bull. I was raised on the belief that if you cannot afford it, you do not buy it/ have it. Doesn't matter if it's a new car or a new kid.

Graduate from high school
Don't get pregnant before 21
Work a full time job

Do these 3 things and you have a 2% chance of living in poverty in the US.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

We knew you were the smartest guy in every room you entered. Had no idea you were the holiest and most pious to go along with it!

Stagnation, globalization, and automation have NO correlation to a lot of people making really poor decisions (starting a family without having means to provide aka Wal Mart or McDonald's being your primary income).

I'm 29 next month, I make decent money (not six figures), still paying off college debt and a car (as is my girlfriend of 2 years), and don't know if we could afford a child right now. Could probably do it, but it'd be extremely tight. The idea that person A is entitled to a certain wage because of their circumstances is bull. I was raised on the belief that if you cannot afford it, you do not buy it/ have it. Doesn't matter if it's a new car or a new kid.

Graduate from high school
Don't get pregnant before 21
Work a full time job

Do these 3 things and you have a 2% chance of living in poverty in the US.

Interesting because I read Buster and I sure don't get the words of a man who acts like what you accuse. Instead when I read Buster I get a genuine feeling of empathy for others. I see his words as countering an inflexible point, and not being introduced as a general solution.

On one hand I am uncomfortable in carrying on this discussion, because it will probably degenerate in to the same name calling by the same people, but I have faith some may gain from continuing. I see Buster as saying with words, ideas, and general context, that we need to promote humans and not stereotypes in this conversation. (Sir dshans, yankeehater, etc., too) And on the other hand I see the same old generalized closed system economic conversations that didn't work in the 50's, and the 80's and the 00's, not able to respond to the fact that their logic doesn't track if their generalizations, logic errors and truisms are attacked and exposed for the myths they are.

Where is Mr. Larson to point out his straw man arguments? Ah, for the good old days!

 

[Bishop2b5]

Bogs, I definitely don't want to see this conversation turn into a name-calling rant where anyone feels insulted. It's a touchy issue where people's deeply-held beliefs and views of the world are questioned.

I do want to add one thing to the conversation in reply to yours and Buster's apparent views about something though. Neither I nor most people who share my views on this subject are without empathy, concern, or pity for those less fortunate. That seems to be a widely held, and quite erroneous, belief by those on the other side of the argument. We believe strongly in charity, helping others, and want to see everyone enjoy a good life. We understand the difference between giving and helping of our own free will, and being forced to support those who have consistently made poor choices and show little or no willingness to do anything to improve their lot in life.

We also understand that the path out of poverty is to get an education, work hard, increase your skills, avoid immediate gratification in exchange for long-term reward, have a stable family life and have children only when you can emotionally and financially afford them instead of having several children at a young age with multiple partners, and avoid poor lifestyle choices that hamper your ability to get ahead instead of shirking all responsibility for your own life, your own choices, and demanding that someone else support you and protect you from the consequences of your own actions.

Donating your time or money to a homeless shelter, providing presents and food to a needy family at Christmas, paying the utilities of a struggling family, volunteering your time to provide tutoring to underprivileged kids, donating your time to provide medical attention, giving money to your church's benevolent fund, buying meals for the homeless, putting gas in the car of a stranded family without money and buying them a meal, working with kids from poor families to show them the path out of poverty, etc., etc. I've done all those things countless times. Most of my friends and family who share my views regularly do those things also. So don't claim I or those of like mind are without empathy or concern.

Being forced by law to pay double for a good or service, or to involuntarily give up a significant portion of my hard-earned income to support those who won't work as hard as I do or who are poor because they made countless bad decisions about their lifestyle, education, or work habits is something else entirely. Charity is something you do with your own time & money of your own free will. Forcing someone else to do it with their money is NOT charity.

 

[AvesEvo]

You tell me what you think causes poverty. I'm not talking about the poor person in a hellhole of a third world country where no opportunities exist. I'm talking about here in the US .

Man how the fuck can you live in SOUTH DAKOTA and still have these beliefs!? What sort of bubble do you live in?

Pine Ridge Statistics as of 2007

Unemployment rate of 80-90%
Per capita income of $4,000
8 Times the United States rate of diabetes
5 Times the United States rate of cervical cancer
Twice the rate of heart disease
8 Times the United States rate of Tuberculosis
Alcoholism rate estimated as high as 80%
1 in 4 infants born with fetal alcohol syndrome or effects
Suicide rate more than twice the national rate
Teen suicide rate 4 times the national rate
Infant mortality is three times the national rate
Life expectancy on Pine Ridge is the lowest in the United States and the 2nd lowest in the Western Hemisphere. Only Haiti has a lower rate.

And there is A LOT more in this article.

Facts about the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation

 

[Bishop2b5]

Yes, Pine Ridge is a horrible place and the people there have sunk to a level that's hard to climb back up from as a group, but far from impossible for the individuals. The reasons for all the problems are complicated and there's no doubt they were taken advantage of in the past. I see those people almost every day and it's a sad situation. It's also an extreme situation that's not typical in this country.

I'm very sympathetic to the plight of those people and I'm certainly not biased against Native Americans, as I'm part Native American myself. As much as I feel bad for them, I also see on an almost daily basis that much of the problem is that most of those people have simply given up trying and instead do exactly the things I've pointed out earlier that virtually assure perpetual poverty. They refuse to take responsibility for improving their lot and instead rely on the government or the tribe to take care of them.

One of my best friends here grew up in Pine Ridge. He said that the week he graduated from HS, he got the #&@! out of there and moved to Rapid City. He didn't want to be a typical rez inhabitant and live that way. He took responsibility for improving his life. Worked construction, learned what he needed to learn, saved up, and then started his own business as a contractor. He makes more money than I do by a mile. He says he used to try hiring guys from the rez, but virtually all of them would quit after their first check, couldn't be depended on to show up, and had no ambition. Those who acted otherwise easily worked themselves into a nice career and made it out. I have several coworkers from Pine Ridge with similar stories.

Pine Ridge is a disaster, and I feel bad for the people there. I see those people all the time. Most have simply given up, or they can't see a way out, or all they know is to drown their problems in alcohol, drop out of school, and wait for someone to help them. That's a tough situation and surely must seem hopeless to many of them. I understand that, but I also know that many people from there have made it out to a MUCH better life, and they've done it the same way most people do: completing their education, working hard, avoiding the behaviors that assure you'll stay impoverished, and most of all, taking responsibility for improving your own situation instead of waiting for someone else to rescue you.

I don't say any of that because I don't care about the plight of the less fortunate. I say it because I do care and I know what works to improve their situation. It's the path most impoverished immigrants have taken to achieve success and wealth after reaching our country. It's the path my own grandparents, parents, and aunts & uncles took to escape poverty and achieve success. It's what millions of people in this country have done to escape poverty and become successful. It's what's always worked better and more consistently than anything else.

You can wring your hands and throw money at them all day long, but look at how that's worked in the vast majority of cases. It's been a complete failure at raising the poor out of their situation. Most people who accept such help long term end up staying poor and so do their children and their children after them. Want to help them? Teach them the secret to success: hard work, education, saving as much money as possible instead of spending it on junk, making themselves a valuable commodity in the work place, waiting to have children until you can afford them and doing so with someone who'll be there to help you raise them, putting off immediate gratification and instead focusing on long-term rewards, avoiding criminal activity, and avoiding poor lifestyle choices. And most of all: take responsibility for your own actions and their results. Period.