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.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,565 posts, read 81,147,605 times
Reputation: 57767
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by jertheber
And conversely, not raising wages increases the price as anyone over fifty can attest to. This is the thing left unspoken by those who prefer to see business as a victim rather than a perpetrator of greed. My experience over the forty plus years of work I participated in was that prices were rising whether I was getting any more money or not. Of course the business cheerleaders were stating that this price rise was the result of all the union labor demands for better wages, even in those sectors that weren't union the prices always went up, and in some cases prices went up when wages actually went down.
I'm well over fifty, and making more now with better benefits than ever before in my life. In my first "career" I worked my way up from a temporary office flunky to manager over about 15 years. Every promotion allowed me to increase savings, buy a house, or move up to a better house. During the child-rearing years I owned and operated a business, where I learned that I had to pay above minimum wages to attract and keep the best people in order to survive, but I was not in the fast food industry where replacements are easy to come by and train. In my 50s I went back to an office job and found that working your way up still is possible, even for older people. In 5 years I have been promoted twice, now making close to double what I made when I started here, well more than the prices have risen. The real problem is that without specialized skills and experience, the jobs available are either high paid tech, or low pay fast food/service industry. The middle range upon which the middle class depends has been reduced greatly, and those people locked into a specific job for a long time cannot find something equivalent to replace it if the business goes under. I was lucky enough to find a new career where the experience gained in the first and in owning the business combined to provide exactly what was needed by a good employer.
And conversely, not raising wages increases the price as anyone over fifty can attest to. This is the thing left unspoken by those who prefer to see business as a victim rather than a perpetrator of greed. My experience over the forty plus years of work I participated in was that prices were rising whether I was getting any more money or not.
Yeah, so?
Did you know this is the Economics Forum?
I guess you didn't. What is the purpose of Economics?
If you could answer that question, then there'd be fewer silly comments about increasing prices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bideshi
Let's just hope that the reduction in earnings pretty much across the boards in middle class America will also result in a lowering of the cost of living.
Not gonna happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bideshi
We'll never be a three-cars-and-a-boat America again, but let's at least hope we can pay the heating bill.
If you're living in a multi-family household, I'm sure you can manage to pay the heating bill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
There’s a theoretical indefinite market determined minimum wage rate for every labor market.
[Where there’s no enforced definite effectively enforced minimum wage rate that is greater than the indefinite rate, the indefinite rate emerges as the labor market’s effective minimum wage rate.
The market's effective minimum wage rate is applicable to even the wages of the least qualified workers and/or the least challenging job tasks; i.e. within each labor market’s jurisdiction the minimum rate is absolutely the minimum wage rate regardless of any jobs’ tasks.
If the occupation of everyone in a given Market was "goat herder" then you'd be right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
Employers’ of labor are generally at greater and the working poor are at lesser advantage when negotiating wages or other factors of employment. The indefinite minimum rate is a "race to the bottom" and is thus drastically of less purchasing power than any historic federal minimum wage rate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
Your mention of supply and demand seems to imply that employers of labor negotiate with the working poor in the same manner and on as equitable manner as they compete with competing enterprises. I doubt if you’re so naïve as to believe that’s the case.
Then you can fault your education system for failing to empower students and prepare them for the Real Worldâ„¢.
Purchasing power is not relevant.
Did I mention this is the Economics Forum?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
JimHCom, your post’s faulty logic is based upon incorrect information or assumptions.
The federal minimum wage rate is the floor that most greatly affects each USA labor market’s typical rate for the market’s least challenging tasks and least qualified workers. That is among the primary justifications for the legally mandated minimum wage.
And your faulty logic is the assumption of a uniform floor across the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
There are employees performing much less challenging tasks that justify paying the federal minimum wage...
There is no justification for a "federal" minimum wage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
A definite FMW rate (that’s additionally annually updated to the keep abreast with the cost-price index) is justified to reduce our nation’s incidences of individual and families poverty, government expenditures for public assistance, and general detriments to our economic and social environments.
There is no logical reason to have a minimum wage that is pegged to the "cost-price index."
In fact, that is totally illogical and contrary to the Laws of Economics, so it would do nothing but cause severe economic and financial harm.
Your argument fails miserably because it is predicated on the False Dilemma Fallacy, and on Subjectivity, instead of Objectivity.
In the first place, the United States is not now, nor has it even been -- and for all practical purposes and intents never will be --- a nation. Likewise you are not now, and have never been and never will be a nation-State. You are a country....organized as a federation. Specifically, you are a republican federation, or a federal republic if you prefer.
Your position is so easily disproved with facts.
Some single Americans have an annual income of $9,101....do they quality for HUD subsidized housing paid for by tax-payers?
NO,...they do not qualify, because they earn too much money.
Some single Americans are paid $26.75/hour and have an annual income of $53,490....do they quality for HUD subsidized housing paid for by tax-payers?
Yes, they do.
I just used data from the US Department of Housing & Urban Development Minimum Income Levels to totally annihilate your argument.
$9,101 / 2000 hours = $4.55/hour
So what should the "federal" minimum wage be? $4.55/hour or $26.75/hour?
Such uniformity is undesirable.
You cannot objectively define "Poverty" in no uncertain terms. I just proved that. Best case scenario is that you might come fairly close to objectively creating 1,539 definitions of "poverty" for each of the 1,539 separately functioning economies/Markets within the united States.
The government may take action whenever it so desires to decrease the level of "government expenditures for public assistance," but government will not, because government is dependent on a Dependent Class so that government may expand and gain increasing amounts of control.
The single person earning $26.75/hour getting HUD housing subsidizes sucking the life out of tax-payers?
Cut them off.
They can share living accommodations with another person or family similarly situated.
The married couple with no children earning $30.84/hour or $61,680 annually....cut them off. They can share a flat or a house with a single person or another couple or family.
The married couple with a child earning $34.68/hour or $69,360 annually....cut them off...they can share living accommodations, too.
Food Stamps? 90 days maximum, then cut off.
90 days is a sufficient amount of time to find a new place to live, sharing accommodations another person or persons similarly situated.
If people cannot afford "food" then they need to start cutting their unnecessary expenses so that they can afford to buy food, and housing is one of the biggest expenses. If they have to give up their car to cut gasoline, insurance and maintenance costs so that they can afford to buy food, then that's what they need to be doing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
(I also doubt that you believe small businesses are not at some disadvantage to large competitive corporations. But the disadvantages and their consequences of the working poor drastically exceed that of small enterprises).
Small businesses make up:
99.7 percent of U.S. employer firms,
64 percent of net new private-sector jobs,
49.2 percent of private-sector employment,
42.9 percent of private-sector payroll,
46 percent of private-sector output,
43 percent of high-tech employment,
98 percent of firms exporting goods, and
33 percent of exporting value.
Source: SBA Office of Advocacy Frequently Asked Questions, September 2012
If small businesses are at a disadvantage, then it is because your own apathy has permitted a situation to exist and perpetuate, allowing large corporations to right the rules and regulations giving them a competitive advantage over small businesses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
The minimum wage more or less affects all wage rates’ purchasing powers inversely and proportional to inversely to the jobs’ rates. Of course the minimum rate’s greatest effects are upon the lowest paying jobs; its effect proportionate to jobs’ rates taper down as job rates approach the median rate.
No, it doesn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
The additional people employed if the minimum wage’s purchasing power is sufficiently reduced will not be reflected by reduced rates of unemployment. The additionally less qualified labor enabled to be employed due to the to sufficiently reduced purchasing power of the minim wage will significantly exceed the numbers of additional jobs created; the nation’s rate of unemployment will not be reduced and it would likely be increased.
Again, that fails. You increase "poverty" not decrease it.
The wage rate for any one of the 800+ Skill-sets in any given one of the 1,539 separate economies/Markets in the US is determined solely by the Laws of Economics via Supply & Demand, not by government policies designed to make people feel good, while maximizing harm.
At $7.25/hour with a gun to my head, I might be willing to hire a drop-out or even a convicted felon.
At $10/hour no freaking way. If I'm forced to pay more, then I want greater value, so those who dropped out, have GEDs, or criminal records need not apply.
Quote:
This seems like an overly-complex and verbose way of explaining the concept of a race to the bottom with regard to wages in an economy where supply for labor far outweighs demand.
I'm well over fifty, and making more now with better benefits than ever before in my life. In my first "career" I worked my way up from a temporary office flunky to manager over about 15 years. Every promotion allowed me to increase savings, buy a house, or move up to a better house. During the child-rearing years I owned and operated a business, where I learned that I had to pay above minimum wages to attract and keep the best people in order to survive, but I was not in the fast food industry where replacements are easy to come by and train. In my 50s I went back to an office job and found that working your way up still is possible, even for older people. In 5 years I have been promoted twice, now making close to double what I made when I started here, well more than the prices have risen. The real problem is that without specialized skills and experience, the jobs available are either high paid tech, or low pay fast food/service industry. The middle range upon which the middle class depends has been reduced greatly, and those people locked into a specific job for a long time cannot find something equivalent to replace it if the business goes under. I was lucky enough to find a new career where the experience gained in the first and in owning the business combined to provide exactly what was needed by a good employer.
I was making a statement regarding the notion that wages drive prices, it was my observation that this isn't the case in most scenarios of rising prices. I used to hear about the evil of unions being the driver of higher prices, and it again was my experience that prices rose with or without the advances in wages for the majority of workers. Many people have experienced a better compensation than they had in their past, but I'm speaking to the notion that so many believe regarding wages and prices.
For the majority of workers in the US the affordability of the base necessities has moved beyond their reach, housing, medical care, retirement funding, and education, have all experienced a raise in cost that is making these things harder to obtain. Rental housing units are being thrown up at a very brisk pace, education is at a point that millions of people are priced out, medical care is now a function of insurance coverage that many can't afford. Your personal experience is certainly not the norm for most of America's working class laborers, I'd be the first to agree that your statement about luck being a part of your finding a new career and I'm highly aware of the fact that no blanket statement would suffice here but in the main wages are not at the level that allows workers to contribute to the greater good financially.
I guess you didn't. What is the purpose of Economics?
If you could answer that question, then there'd be fewer silly comments about increasing prices.
Not gonna happen.
If you're living in a multi-family household, I'm sure you can manage to pay the heating bill.
If the occupation of everyone in a given Market was "goat herder" then you'd be right.
Then you can fault your education system for failing to empower students and prepare them for the Real Worldâ„¢.
Purchasing power is not relevant.
Did I mention this is the Economics Forum?
And your faulty logic is the assumption of a uniform floor across the US.
There is no justification for a "federal" minimum wage.
There is no logical reason to have a minimum wage that is pegged to the "cost-price index."
In fact, that is totally illogical and contrary to the Laws of Economics, so it would do nothing but cause severe economic and financial harm.
Your argument fails miserably because it is predicated on the False Dilemma Fallacy, and on Subjectivity, instead of Objectivity.
In the first place, the United States is not now, nor has it even been -- and for all practical purposes and intents never will be --- a nation. Likewise you are not now, and have never been and never will be a nation-State. You are a country....organized as a federation. Specifically, you are a republican federation, or a federal republic if you prefer.
Your position is so easily disproved with facts.
Some single Americans have an annual income of $9,101....do they quality for HUD subsidized housing paid for by tax-payers?
NO,...they do not qualify, because they earn too much money.
Some single Americans are paid $26.75/hour and have an annual income of $53,490....do they quality for HUD subsidized housing paid for by tax-payers?
Yes, they do.
I just used data from the US Department of Housing & Urban Development Minimum Income Levels to totally annihilate your argument.
$9,101 / 2000 hours = $4.55/hour
So what should the "federal" minimum wage be? $4.55/hour or $26.75/hour?
Such uniformity is undesirable.
You cannot objectively define "Poverty" in no uncertain terms. I just proved that. Best case scenario is that you might come fairly close to objectively creating 1,539 definitions of "poverty" for each of the 1,539 separately functioning economies/Markets within the united States.
The government may take action whenever it so desires to decrease the level of "government expenditures for public assistance," but government will not, because government is dependent on a Dependent Class so that government may expand and gain increasing amounts of control.
The single person earning $26.75/hour getting HUD housing subsidizes sucking the life out of tax-payers?
Cut them off.
They can share living accommodations with another person or family similarly situated.
The married couple with no children earning $30.84/hour or $61,680 annually....cut them off. They can share a flat or a house with a single person or another couple or family.
The married couple with a child earning $34.68/hour or $69,360 annually....cut them off...they can share living accommodations, too.
Food Stamps? 90 days maximum, then cut off.
90 days is a sufficient amount of time to find a new place to live, sharing accommodations another person or persons similarly situated.
If people cannot afford "food" then they need to start cutting their unnecessary expenses so that they can afford to buy food, and housing is one of the biggest expenses. If they have to give up their car to cut gasoline, insurance and maintenance costs so that they can afford to buy food, then that's what they need to be doing.
Small businesses make up:
99.7 percent of U.S. employer firms,
64 percent of net new private-sector jobs,
49.2 percent of private-sector employment,
42.9 percent of private-sector payroll,
46 percent of private-sector output,
43 percent of high-tech employment,
98 percent of firms exporting goods, and
33 percent of exporting value.
Source: SBA Office of Advocacy Frequently Asked Questions, September 2012
If small businesses are at a disadvantage, then it is because your own apathy has permitted a situation to exist and perpetuate, allowing large corporations to right the rules and regulations giving them a competitive advantage over small businesses.
No, it doesn't.
Again, that fails. You increase "poverty" not decrease it.
The wage rate for any one of the 800+ Skill-sets in any given one of the 1,539 separate economies/Markets in the US is determined solely by the Laws of Economics via Supply & Demand, not by government policies designed to make people feel good, while maximizing harm.
At $7.25/hour with a gun to my head, I might be willing to hire a drop-out or even a convicted felon.
At $10/hour no freaking way. If I'm forced to pay more, then I want greater value, so those who dropped out, have GEDs, or criminal records need not apply.
My God, I love your comedic attempts at whipping the masses into submission, I bow to your obvious superiority but the bad news is that you'll just have to put me on ignore, lol, keep those beatings coming, we all need a hearty laugh now and then........
JimHCom, your post’s faulty logic is based upon incorrect information or assumptions.
The federal minimum wage rate is the floor that most greatly affects each USA labor market’s typical rate for the market’s least challenging tasks and least qualified workers. That is among the primary justifications for the legally mandated minimum wage.
Your mention of supply and demand seems to imply that employers of labor negotiate with the working poor in the same manner and on as equitable manner as they compete with competing enterprises. I doubt if you’re so naïve as to believe that’s the case.
(I also doubt that you believe small businesses are not at some disadvantage to large competitive corporations. But the disadvantages and their consequences of the working poor drastically exceed that of small enterprises).
The minimum wage more or less affects all wage rates’ purchasing powers inversely and proportional to inversely to the jobs’ rates.
Of course the minimum rate’s greatest effects are upon the lowest paying jobs; its effect proportionate to jobs’ rates taper down as job rates approach the median rate.
Minimum wage is inconsequential to average wages as only 2% of people earn a minimum wage.'
If you are earning the minimum wage it is because you lack the skills and talent that make you valuable enough to negotiate a reasonable wage from your employer. For that the minimum wage worker has no one to blame but themselves.
The minimum wage is simply a liberal facade to deceive the poor that the liberals give a damn about the poor.
Increasing the minimum waqe increases cost and thus prices of goods; plain and simple.
Tex Dav, permitting the purchasing power of the minimum wage rate to decrease increases our nation’s poverty rate which is net detrimental to our nations economic and social environment. Price stability while wages purchasing powers decrease our net economic detriment to our nation.
Increasing the minimum wage increases cost and thus prices of goods; plain and simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
Tex Dav, permitting the purchasing power of the minimum wage rate...
Huh? This reply is non-responsive, sorry.
Supposn, one problem with your line of reasoning in this thread is that you're all over the map with your terminology. In this case, you don't seem to differentiate between the minimum wage and the purchasing power of the minimum wage. They're two completely different things.
The minimum wage itself is changed by Congress (which thoroughly exceeds its constitutional authority when doing so - nowhere is the federal government granted authority by the States to impose wage levels, nationally - minimum or otherwise).
Purchasing power is something completely differrent; it's determined by the inflation rate and the rate at which the FED dilutes our currency, both of which are quite high at present (they're also interdependent). As texdav correctly points out, jacking up the minimum wage does have a nominal impact on the price of goods and, especially, services (most minwage jobs are in the service market) which, ironically, reduces the wage's purchasing power.
As for the rate itself, only about 1% of Americans earn the minimum wage. Changing it - up or down - has no measurable effect on the economy. And baseless assertions to the contrary, increases in the minimum don't force all other wages to increase.
The dirty little secret no one's supposed to know about is this: the ONLY wages that increase automatically as a result of the min wage increase are union wages that are contractually pegged to that value. When Congress increases the minimum wage, THOSE are the people they're seeking to benefit (not the 1% of folks actually earning the min.), because THOSE are the people whose union dues are bundled into huge political campaign contributions. The Appeal to Emotion fallacy on which the increase is sold - i.e., helping the so-called "poor" - has nothing to do with the real motivation for jacking up the rate.
Ask yourself this: How many people do you know that are over 30 work for minumum wage? I looked at my own life and I have not made minumum wage since I was 15 years old. I am 48 now and when I was 18 I was making $13 an hour. That was good pay back then. At the time I was working in the oil fields.
we have around 2,000 employees that work for our healthcare system and the only one I know that makes minumum wage is a part time woman that works in the hospitals gift shop. Don't even think the Mc Donalds employees stay on minumum wage for very long. My wifes neice works at a Mc Donalds and within 6 months she had moved up to a higher paying position at that franchise.
After reading User Zero's thoughts I am convinced that it is a ploy to help raise the income of the Union employees.
Supposn, one problem with your line of reasoning in this thread is that you're all over the map with your terminology. In this case, you don't seem to differentiate between the minimum wage and the purchasing power of the minimum wage. They're two completely different things.
The minimum wage itself is changed by Congress (which thoroughly exceeds its constitutional authority when doing so - nowhere is the federal government granted authority by the States to impose wage levels, nationally - minimum or otherwise).
Purchasing power is something completely differrent; it's determined by the inflation rate and the rate at which the FED dilutes our currency, both of which are quite high at present (they're also interdependent). As texdav correctly points out, jacking up the minimum wage does have a nominal impact on the price of goods and, especially, services (most minwage jobs are in the service market) which, ironically, reduces the wage's purchasing power.
As for the rate itself, only about 1% of Americans earn the minimum wage. Changing it - up or down - has no measurable effect on the economy. And baseless assertions to the contrary, increases in the minimum don't force all other wages to increase.
The dirty little secret no one's supposed to know about is this: the ONLY wages that increase automatically as a result of the min wage increase are union wages that are contractually pegged to that value. When Congress increases the minimum wage, THOSE are the people they're seeking to benefit (not the 1% of folks actually earning the min.), because THOSE are the people whose union dues are bundled into huge political campaign contributions. The Appeal to Emotion fallacy on which the increase is sold - i.e., helping the so-called "poor" - has nothing to do with the real motivation for jacking up the rate.
U0
USER Zero, is it your contention that the minimum wage rate and its purchasing power are unrelated?
At any given moment the minimum rate and its purchasing power are one and the same.
Failure to retain the minimum rate’s purchasing power in effect permits the value of the minimum rate to be reduced. There’s a definite relationship between the U.S. Dollar and the Dollar’s purchasing power. That same degree of factor exists between the minimum rate and its purchasing power.
Regarding the federal Minimum wage, (FMW) rate’s constitutional justification, each time it has been challenged, it emerged as fully viable.
The minim rate is much less a driver and much more a victim of reduced U.S. Dollar’s purchasing power. That is why I'm among the proponents for pegging the FMW rate to the cost-price index.
How many people earn the precise minimum rate is inconsequential to the purpose of our FMW rate’s laws and regulations. The FMW rate significantly effects the compensation of USA’s lowest earning quarter of our wage and salary earners.
Permitting the unadjusted minimum rate’s purchasing power to be reduced due to the U.S. Dollar’s inflation is significantly detrimental to the least earning quarter of USA’s wage and salary earners and increases our rate of poverty.
Each instance of increasing the FMW rate to regain some portion of the minimum rate’s purchasing power has been net economically beneficial to our nation.
I’m supposing that you do not believe lower wage workers are at a disadvantage when they must individually negotiate with current or prospective employers; I’m among those that certainly do believe it.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,565 posts, read 81,147,605 times
Reputation: 57767
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE
UserZero nailed it.
Ask yourself this: How many people do you know that are over 30 work for minumum wage? I looked at my own life and I have not made minumum wage since I was 15 years old. I am 48 now and when I was 18 I was making $13 an hour. That was good pay back then. At the time I was working in the oil fields.
we have around 2,000 employees that work for our healthcare system and the only one I know that makes minumum wage is a part time woman that works in the hospitals gift shop. Don't even think the Mc Donalds employees stay on minumum wage for very long. My wifes neice works at a Mc Donalds and within 6 months she had moved up to a higher paying position at that franchise.
After reading User Zero's thoughts I am convinced that it is a ploy to help raise the income of the Union employees.
I tend to agree, having several friends and family members in unions, that have not had a raise in several years, or have even had their union agree to cuts to avoid layoffs. While they are all making over $15 already, a minimum wage increase to that would mean increases for them to acknowledge their education, skills and experience being worth more than minimum, but for their employers to balance the budgets it would mean layoffs.
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.
