The first chapter lists many of the ways life has gotten better for the middle class--not just the rich.

What about the poor though? Minimum wage hasn't increased since 1996. It hasn't even matched inflation and Republicans still resist raising it.

So, the people who need *the most* help aren't getting it.

Look, what's going to happen if they raise minimum wage? Employers will react in one of two ways: Cutting the poor people's hours/layoffs, or else they will raise the prices of their goods and services to compensate. Either way, it only hurts the poor.

And, really, since the poor are having problems with obesity, I really don't think they're that badly off. The poor have food, shelter, clean water, and access to emergency medicine. The government and the generosity of the American people have seen to that. The rest is up to the poor; if they want more, let them educate themselves (plenty of both state and private scholarships for the poor) and get better jobs.

So, the answer is: "Let them eat cake"?

Not raising the minimum wage hurts the poor, too. And more and more the longer we wait to raise it. Raising it hurts big business, which is the true concern for most who want to keep it down.

If the minimum wage were raised incrementally along with inflation it'd have much less an impact on the economy, big business and the poor. That's Economics 101.

My point above was that raising minimum wage *only* hurts the poor, because either A) prices will go up to compensate for the expense the new minimum wage would cause, or B) business won't be able to afford their minimum-wage workers and will lay them off, cut their hours, or outsource their jobs to India.

You *can't* raise minimum wage incrementally along with inflation, because raising minimum wage will *cause* inflation because raising the expenses that go into the product (i.e. labor expenses) will raise the price the corporation must charge in order to make profit on the product. (Lest we forget, business are supposed to make a profit; profit isn't bad.) Because the prices will go up, the poor will face a loss in buying power even as their wages increase--assuming they still have their jobs in the first place.

This won't affect the rich much; they can afford to pay an extra few dollars for their necessities. The poor cannot. It's not going to hurt the nebulous "Big Business;" it's going to hurt the poor.

But what to do then? "Let them eat cake"? (That's probably the cause of their obesity problems I mentioned earlier. j/k) Look, in America, if you stay poor your entire life, it's because you didn't either don't have the will to succeed, pure and simple. And if you don't have that--if you aren't willing to work hard and better yourself and your situation--then why should I waste my time trying to help you? As I said before, there are plenty of scholarships and opportunities here. If you don't take advantage of them, that's your problem.

(Oh, one other hint: It helps to not make really stupid decisions, like having a kid when you're a teenager or running up huge credit card debts. A little self-discipline is worth tens of thousands of dollars.)

One other thing I should have better addressed in my first post: The lot of the American poor is improving as well. In the past, the poor struggled for survival. Now they struggle for working air conditioning. The point of the first chapter of the book is that American quality of life in general is improving, but especially in the middle class, where most of the population dwells.

No, you didn't read my post properly. The point is, you *have to* raise them along with inflation so the impact won't be as great as if you wait. It's simple math. If you don't do it incrementally, you end up having to do it in a big chunk later on which has a far, far bigger impact on business.

Additionally, did you realize that keeping the minimum wage down has contributed significantly to mothers having to enter the workplace? In the mid-70s we quit adjusting the minimum wage properly according to inflation. At that time about 1/3 of mothers worked. Now, about 2/3 of mothers have to work in order for a husband and wife to make enough money to run a family.

If you stay poor your entire life, it's because you didn't either don't have the will to succeed, pure and simple.

Really? Pure and simple? How do you define "the will to succeed"? What gene is that carried in? How can you quantify or define that? there's some truth to what you're saying, of course, but you're being very flip about the tragic situations many of the poor find themselves in. They don't have the head start middle and upper class folks do.

And if you don't have that--if you aren't willing to work hard and better yourself and your situation--then why should I waste my time trying to help you? ... If you don't take advantage of them, that's your problem.

Huh. Is that *really* what Jesus would do? I don't understand: aren't you supposed to emulate Christ as a Christian? Or do you just say, yeah, he really did help the poor and needy, but, hey, we're not really expected to be *like him.* The poor can help themselves.

Who are you really following? Jesus? Or the Republican Party? Or Ayn Rand?

Is that what they teach you at Bob Jones? How not to care?

Also, poor people are fat or unhealthy because they have plenty of money to throw around; they're fat because they can only afford unhealthy food and because they haven't had the benefit of a proper dietary education. Following you reasoning, if they're rich because they can afford lots of food - then all rich people would be morbidly obese.

BTW, sorry if I got a little too passionate with my arguments above, but I hope you'll consider the essence of my arguments.

Isn't it a little ironic that I, an atheist, am imploring you to "be more like Christ"?

Your first point: I don't understand why you have to raise minimum wage at all. You seem to be assuming that minimum wage must be raised at some point, while I'm assuming that it doesn't necessarily need to be raised at all.

Also: 2/3 of mothers have to work? They won't survive on one income? There are books written about how a lot of the people who think they need two incomes might only need one.

Second point: You're probably right about me taking the plight of the poor too flippantly. I understand that some people really are poor, but I'd guess that 95% of the time that's caused by them doing something stupid: drugs, extramarital sex at a young age, dropping out of high school, etc. The other 5% might be the result of some debilitating disease or terrible misfortune. When, hypothetically speaking, 95% of poverty might be eliminated by the next generation of poor exhibiting better decision making, it's hard for me to be too terribly sympathetic. The other 5% have my condolances and my willing aid.

Third point: In Matthew 25, Jesus commends those who helped the poor, saying "I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me....Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."

From this we can determine how Christ expects us to respond to the poor: We are to help them by providing food, drink, shelter, clothing, medicine, and comfort in prison. We already provide all of these things to our poor! The poor of America are not starving, naked, and sick. If they were, they could come to one of the rescue missions that the generosity of private citizens has built, come and receive food, drink, clothing, and shelter. If they are sick, we have free emergency medical care available for them. And our prisons are not the rat-infested dank caves that the Roman prisons were, and many churches have prison-ministries as well. We are already doing everything that Christ asked us to do.

Elsewhere in the Bible, in II Thessalonians, it is written, "If any would not work, neither should he eat." The poor are expected to take advantage of opportunities presented to them. So, yes, the poor should help themselves too.

Re: poor can't afford nutritious foods: That's just not true. There are plenty of good foods available for low prices. And if the poor haven't had a proper dietary education, then that's the failing of the public school system, which I'm sure you agree needs improvement. My point in bringing up the obesity rate of the poor was that if they're obese, then they're not starving.

Re: Your assertion that I don't care about the poor. That's not true either; I'm glad to assist the truly poor--the starving, naked, and dying. Frankly, I resent your attempt to equate my desire to keep minimum wage where it is with a lack of concern for the poor. As I've said before, raising minimum wage will hurt the poor, for reasons I've mentioned above, which I note you have not addressed.

As I've said before, raising minimum wage will hurt the poor, for reasons I've mentioned above, which I note you have not addressed.

The longer you wait to raise the minumum wage, the more it hurts business *and* the poor.

You can't be seriously suggesting that the minimum wage never be raised; since everyone else gets raises according to inflation, that's tantamount to endorsing a growing gap between the middle class/rich and the poor.

I certainly agree with the idea of personal responsibility and that if you work you should be rewarded - so that makes me think of another biblical principle: "the laborer is worthy of his hire." Not the middle class, not the wealthy, "the laborer" - and that covers everyone.

If you want to argue that anyone working a minimum wage job can get training and work their way up the food chain, you can. And you'd be wrong. Soe folks don't have the God-given talents to do that, and to say that they should just keep getting poorer and poorer as the years go by while everyone else gets richer--well, that's immoral.

Why should the government be the one to decide the minimum wage? Why not let labor be like any other resource, and let the prices be set by the free market? Before you say "because corporations will exploit the poor and not give them a fair wage," I'd remind you that the corporations would be competing against one another for workers. If one employer wouldn't pay well enough, then the employee could go to one of the company's competitors and be hired on there.

I'm not sure why you brought up the "the laborer is worthy of his hire" passage. Of course he is; the question is who determines what his hire will be. Will the government, by dictating a minimum wage, or will the employer and the employee agree together on a fair price?

Think of labor as a person selling a product: the person's time. Then think of minimum wage as a price floor on that product. What does basic economics teach us about price floors? By setting a price floor, you inevitably create a surplus--in this case, the surplus is unemployment.

Now, if instead, you remove the price floor then market forces will drive the price to a lower point, thereby increasing the demand and reducing (or eliminating) the surplus (unemployment). Since the price of labor will have gone down, then the price of goods can come down--a sort of deflation. And everybody wins, especially the poor, because they will have both jobs and cheaper goods to buy.

So, not only do I think that the minimum wage should not be raised, I think that perhaps it should be abolished all together.

As regards your last point: I can't believe that someone who really wanted to could not "work up the foodchain" unless they were mentally or physically disabled. And, once again, if that is the case, then we as a country have built institutions to help them; raising the minimum wage won't.