Minimum wage isn't meant to be a living wage (work, news, capital)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
About 3 million, well paying full time jobs with benefits, go unfilled in the U.S each year. Employers import labor to perform this work because they cannot fill these positions from the U.S. labor pool. Not everyone can be educated/trained to be competent in scientific, math and technology work.
Actually I'd argue that schools have been gutted financially to the point that they can't train people to fill these positions. One of the reasons large companies like Intel donate millions to schools - with the hope that they'll be the eventual beneficiary of the increased skilled labor pool. My college certainly benefited from those donations, and I remember a meeting with Intel head hunters who flat up said "Every single one of you who graduates this specific program will have a job with us."
The concept that there aren't enough skilled workers to fill the jobs is total B.S. and goes against all of the facts. U.S. worker productivity is at an all-time high. We have the highest skilled labor force in our nation's history. U.S. corporate profits are at an all-time high. American workers are working longer hours on average than anytime in modern history and are producing more per worker than ever before.
This notion that there aren't enough skilled and companies cannot find enough competent labor to fill the jobs is just another excuse to beat down average workers, to make them look incompetent, unskilled, etc. They want to pay workers less, so they'll say anything that downgrades workers.
This entire thread is about lowering workers pay. The funny part is that many of the very people arguing for no minimum wage increases are the ones who've been getting screwed by these policies.
Wages and inflation are two separate things and are not in direct correlation.
That's like saying the Titanic hitting the iceberg, does not "directly correlate" to its sinking. Technically it didn't. Hitting the iceberg directly correlates only to a long rip in the ship's side. That in turn correlates to a lot of water coming in, which in turn correlated to the ship eventually sinking.
But in the real (i.e. other-than-liberal) world, hitting the iceberg is what sunk the Titanic, and raising the minimum wage is what drives inflation higher.
Quote:
Whatever price increases there may be would be offset by higher pay.
And whatever higher pay the poor receive, is offset by price increases.
Most goods and services are produced by people. When you artificially raise people's wages, the stuff they produce, whether it's carrots or cabinets or cars, prices go up. And when they go to buy food or etc., they find they can't buy any more now than they could before you artificially raised their pay.
Amazing how many do-gooders don't know this simple, elementary fact.
Quote:
they spend more, which drives the economy.
"Spending more" doesn't drive the economy. Buying more stuff (goods, services etc.) drives the economy. And as I pointed out, people can't buy any more stuff, because your artificial wage increase raised the prices of what they would buy, too, cancelling out any benefits. The only people who "benefit", are the do-gooders, who can solemnly tell each other that they "did a good thing".
And the more ignorant among them, might actually believe it.
Actually, the only people who are affected, are people like the guy who has been saving his money to accumulate the $14,000 he needs to buy a certain small four-seat new car. He's been saving his money, waiting to get those last few dollars.
But you just raised the minimum wage artificially, and as I described, prices rose too. And the guy who had enough money to buy that $14,000 car, suddenly finds the same car now costs $16,000... and he can't buy it. Because, though wages and prices both went up, the amount he had in the bank did not.
He is the only one affected by your "generous" minimum-wage increase.
Last edited by Little-Acorn; 02-14-2013 at 03:58 PM..
That's like saying the Titanic hitting the iceberg, does not "directly correlate" to its sinking. Technically it didn't. Hitting the iceberg directly correlates only to a long rip in the ship's side. That in turn correlates to a lot of water coming in, which in turn correlated to the ship eventually sinking.
But in the real (i.e. other-than-liberal) world, hitting the iceberg is what sunk the Titanic, and raising the minimum wage is what drives inflation higher.
And whatever higher pay the poor receive, is offset by price increases.
Most gooda and servioces are produced by people. When you aritficially raise people's wages, the stuff they produce, whether it's carrots or cabinets or cars, prices go up. And when they go to buy food or etc., they find they can't buy any more now than they could before you artificially raised their pay.
Amazing how many do-gooders don't know this simple, elementary fact.
"Spending more" doesn't drive the economy. Buying more stuff (goods, services etc.) drives the economy. And as I pointed out, people can't buy any more stuff, because your artificial wage increase raised the prices of what they would buy, too, cancelling out any benefits. The only people who "benefit", are the do-gooders, who can solemnly tell each other that they "did a good thing".
And the more ignorant among them, might actually believe it.
Actually, the only people who are affected, are people like the guy who has been saving his money to accumulate the $14,000 he needs to buy a certain small four-seat new car. He's been saving his money, waiting to get those last few dollars.
But you just raised the minimum wage artificially, and as I described, prices rose too. And the guy who had enough money to buy that $14,000 car, suddenly finds the same car now costs $16,000... and he can't buy it. Because, though wages and prices both went up, the amount he had in the bank did not.
He is the only one affected by your "generous" minimum-wage increase.
Regarding your first paragraph- there is a correlation, but not 50/50. You are assuming that by raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $9.00 that there would be this huge amount of inflation. That is just not true. There may be some inflation, but it would be minimal compared to the positive benefit of raising wages.
You say "artificially raise people's wages"- Well then what do you call suppressing people's wages? That is what we have been doing for 3 decades, so is that artificial? By doing nothing and keeping the minimum wage at $7.25 forever, wages will decline because they do not keep pace with inflation/cost of living. So your solution is to not do anything, so wages will inevitably decline.
"Spending more" doesn't drive the economy. Buying more stuff (goods, services etc.) drives the economy. "
What other type of spending is there? That is essentially what I meant- goods and services. What else are they going to spend their money on? People who earn minimum wage spend 100% of their money on goods and services. They don't save much. It is basic economics 101 that when average-poor people's wages increase, they spend more, which drives the economy. Do you not agree with that?
You are operating under this false premise that if someone's wage goes up, then inflation will go up equally as high wiping out any gains. By your logic, no economy can ever grow if workers' pay goes up. Again, you keep saying "artificially" as if any action whatsoever is artificial.
That's like saying the Titanic hitting the iceberg, does not "directly correlate" to its sinking. Technically it didn't. Hitting the iceberg directly correlates only to a long rip in the ship's side. That in turn correlates to a lot of water coming in, which in turn correlated to the ship eventually sinking.
But in the real (i.e. other-than-liberal) world, hitting the iceberg is what sunk the Titanic, and raising the minimum wage is what drives inflation higher.
And whatever higher pay the poor receive, is offset by price increases.
Most goods and services are produced by people. When you artificially raise people's wages, the stuff they produce, whether it's carrots or cabinets or cars, prices go up. And when they go to buy food or etc., they find they can't buy any more now than they could before you artificially raised their pay.
Amazing how many do-gooders don't know this simple, elementary fact.
"Spending more" doesn't drive the economy. Buying more stuff (goods, services etc.) drives the economy. And as I pointed out, people can't buy any more stuff, because your artificial wage increase raised the prices of what they would buy, too, cancelling out any benefits. The only people who "benefit", are the do-gooders, who can solemnly tell each other that they "did a good thing".
And the more ignorant among them, might actually believe it.
Actually, the only people who are affected, are people like the guy who has been saving his money to accumulate the $14,000 he needs to buy a certain small four-seat new car. He's been saving his money, waiting to get those last few dollars.
But you just raised the minimum wage artificially, and as I described, prices rose too. And the guy who had enough money to buy that $14,000 car, suddenly finds the same car now costs $16,000... and he can't buy it. Because, though wages and prices both went up, the amount he had in the bank did not.
He is the only one affected by your "generous" minimum-wage increase.
Lol... so this is how you understand economics. B/c people earn more, they get charged more? So a $1.49 bag of chips in Brooklyn costs... $14.99 in the Hamptons b/c people can afford to pay more?
You say "artificially raise people's wages"- Well then what do you call suppressing people's wages? That is what we have been doing for 3 decades, so is that artificial? By doing nothing and keeping the minimum wage at $7.25 forever, wages will decline because they do not keep pace with inflation/cost of living. So your solution is to not do anything, so wages will inevitably decline. .
There was no suppression of wages. People moved up to higher paying jobs.
The demographics of the min wage worker changed over the years.
It's now a career on which to raise a family.
They can't move up like people did in the past.
These are now careers, not entry level or part time work for extra money.
This is the bread and butter for many families now.
That is what changed.
Either expand government programs or force employers to pay more.
That's just the way it turned out.
There was no suppression of wages. People moved up to higher paying jobs.
The demographics of the min wage worker changed over the years.
It's now a career on which to raise a family.
They can't move up like people did in the past.
These are now careers, not entry level or part time work for extra money.
This is the bread and butter for many families now.
That is what changed.
Either expand government programs or force employers to pay more.
That's just the way it turned out.
You are living in some sort of alternative reality. Who moved up to higher paying jobs? I'll state it again: The average American worker's wage declined since 1980. Not increased, declined. So again, who are all of these people who you say moved into higher paying jobs?
You say minimum wage is now a career on which to raise a family? What are you smoking? How is someone gonna raise a family on minimum wage? If you believe that, you are in complete denial.
"People can't move up like they did in the past."
I agree with that statement. I also agree that people are having to take minimum wage jobs because that's all they can find. But why is that? Had the minimum wage been increased years ago in increments like it should have been to keep pace with inflation and productivity, maybe things would be better for most people?
The thing is, older people have INVADED the minimum wage job market.
Take a look around, sure there are jobs that go to students, but there is a LARGE number of older and middle age people taking entry-level retail jobs and holding them.
My son is 26. His 1st job was when he was in 7th grade.
He was paid more than minimum wage then, and has earned much more than minimum wage even while working through college.
My daughter worked summers at a local store.....earned more than minimum wage.
Just saying.
What kind of job did he have in 7th grade? When I was in 7th grade I had a paper route, which was the only job available to 12-year-olds then.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
