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.
What if all wages were determined by what the company wanted to pay....you know, supply and demand. I think if there were no minimum wage, certain companies could actually lower their prices and pass on the savings to the consumer..which would stimulate the economy. Why would this be a bad idea?
Who could live off less than $7/hr. At present 3.9 million Americans work in fast food, only 16% of those jobs go to teens.
An increase in wages results in more tax revenue. Rising prices caused by increased wages does the same thing.
In the end, the only one getting an increase is the taxman.
I doubt too many people getting minimum wage are paying much in taxes. A full time worker at minimum wage might earn $15,080 a year. Minus the standard deduction (individual taxpayer = $6100) that would be $8980, which would be taxed at 10%. The worker would keep 90%, assuming no other deductions, dependents, etc.
All else equal, more tax revenue suggests a healthier economy.
And what do you think skilled workers are worth? If you pay the girl at the fast food window $30/hr for ringing up a purchase and swiping a credit card, what are you willing to pay an auto mechanic? A construction worker? A doctor? A plumber?
They don't call it wage price inflation for nothing. If you also put in a tax structure that incentivises the top end not taking more than they already are. Then the bottom would do a 4X the middle would do a 2X and the top wouldn't move at all. Largely wages would tend to compress a bit but it would do wonders for our overall debt level.
Well lets see, Ill try sharing this again to see if anyone catches on...
Laborers do not have income, therefore they should not have to pay income tax.
Ok, , I will give examples of income:
Winning the lottery.
Paid vacation
Business profits
Land Lords rent collection.
As you can see from the above examples, the value coming in pre exists. If someone wins the lottery, do they labor before getting a check? If a business owner has profits coming in, indirectly from sales or investments, is the business owner laboring before getting a check?
When the land Lord collects rent from the room he rents, does the Land lord labor before getting a check?
Nope to the above.
Now notice the "income" the above individuals will receive, is value that pre- exists and is coming from another source OTHER THAN LABOR. Income is the measure of value, , it is NOT THE VALUE. The value someone has coming in, is measured...or calculated. Ok, now lets look at the laborer's paycheck and how it comes into existence comparred to the above income examples....
Does the laborer's paycheck just "come in" like the above income examples? The answer is...NO!
The reason someeone must labor FIRST, then get paid AFTER they work is because they are CREATING A PAYCHECK. They are not just receiving it! It is NOT just coming in!
The laborers paycheck does not pre-exist! If the laborer does not work, the laborer's paycheck would not exist. The value for the laborer's paycheck is coming DIRECTLY from their labor!
This is not money in this system we are dealing with folks, it is fiat non backed currency and accounting numbers that needs our energy and labor for its value.
The employer is just managing the pay account. The employer is not adding any value to the laborer's paycheck.
But if you keep referring to fiat currency and accounting notes as "money", then you will remain confused.
People who must work and use their energy and labor to create a paycheck is being taxed just like a business is taxed. This is why regular workers are broke or becoming broke. They are using their own energy and labor for value DIRECTLY to pay the same taxes as a business pays from value coming INDIRECTLY from profits!
How could they bill or tax someone that does not have a business? Look how your name is written on your bills. Do you see your name 'capitalized'?
Ex:
Jane Doe, in writing, on documents, identifies the natural person
JANE DOE in writing, on documents, identifies a TRADE NAME, is also a BUSINESS NAME (wikipedia: trade name).
When the information is downloaded in the banks software program, if our names are downloaded as a business name, then we will automatically be taxed or billed just like a business is.
Everyone may appear as an individual or personal business, not just a laborer or employee.
The information I am sharing is coming from my own understanding after researching documents using a legal dictionary.
Buy a legal dictionary and please do your own research to verify if my understanding is correct or incorrect.
They don't call it wage price inflation for nothing. If you also put in a tax structure that incentivises the top end not taking more than they already are. Then the bottom would do a 4X the middle would do a 2X and the top wouldn't move at all. Largely wages would tend to compress a bit but it would do wonders for our overall debt level.
What kind of incentive do you create when unskilled labor gets the biggest rewards and the folks doing hard manual labor or paying for a high priced education see diminished rewards. Paying someone $62,400 annually to drop out of school and swipe credit cards hardly sounds like a plan to promote greatness in our society. More like rewarding mediocrity.
Well lets see, Ill try sharing this again to see if anyone catches on...
Laborers do not have income, therefore they should not have to pay income tax.
Ok, , I will give examples of income:
Winning the lottery.
Paid vacation
Business profits
Land Lords rent collection.
As you can see from the above examples, the value coming in pre exists. If someone wins the lottery, do they labor before getting a check? If a business owner has profits coming in, indirectly from sales or investments, is the business owner laboring before getting a check?
When the land Lord collects rent from the room he rents, does the Land lord labor before getting a check?
Nope to the above.
Now notice the "income" the above individuals will receive, is value that pre- exists and is coming from another source OTHER THAN LABOR. Income is the measure of value, , it is NOT THE VALUE. The value someone has coming in, is measured...or calculated. Ok, now lets look at the laborer's paycheck and how it comes into existence comparred to the above income examples....
Does the laborer's paycheck just "come in" like the above income examples? The answer is...NO!
The reason someeone must labor FIRST, then get paid AFTER they work is because they are CREATING A PAYCHECK. They are not just receiving it! It is NOT just coming in!
The laborers paycheck does not pre-exist! If the laborer does not work, the laborer's paycheck would not exist. The value for the laborer's paycheck is coming DIRECTLY from their labor!
This not money in this system we are dealing with folks, it is fiat non backed currency and accounting numbers that receives value backing from our energy and labor.
The employer is just managing the pay account. The employer is not adding any value to the laborer's paycheck.
But if you keep referring to fiat currency and accounting notes as "money", then you will remain confused.
People who must work and use their energy and labor to create a paycheck is being taxed just like a business is taxed. This is why regular workers are broke or becoming broke. They are using their own energy and labor for value DIRECTLY to pay for the same taxes as a business would pay from value coming INDIRECTLY from profits!
It seems you have a rather narrow definition of labor. What, in your mind, do business owners do all day? Sit in a barcalounger counting their profits?
Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, that site got their information wrong.
Google 16 aud to usd.
Google runs a converter that is constantly updated. At the time of writing this, 16 AUD is worth 14.64 in USD. Their math suggesting that the purchasing power was equal to less than 10 suggests someone in their math department failed.
PS. They said it was adjusted for cost of living. However, I happen to know a great deal about cost of living in Australia. The major cities actually have COLs that are on par with the Eastern sea board of the US. IF they were standardizing everything to the US, they would've had to compute the U.S. COL based on cheaper states like Wyoming and Alabama. If they were doing a weighted average of U.S. COLs they would have to weight it accordingly for the large number of people that live in NY, LA, Chicago, or pretty much within 2 hours of any major city on the Eastern Coast. Rest assured, the math that converts 16 AUD to under 10 USD is a joke to any finance professional in the world.
I don't think that you can pay a 21st Century subhuman kid $15 an hour and get good value for your money.
Maybe entry-level jobs should should be partitioned off by definition somehow. Like, if you're a 21st Century subhuman kid and this is your first job, you get a tiny wage for the first year or two.
Who could live off less than $7/hr. At present 3.9 million Americans work in fast food, only 16% of those jobs go to teens.
An often-heard argument, but one which is specious. The fact that many fast-food/retail jobs today are held by adults has nothing to do with what the rate of compensation should be (paper "boys" are a thing of the past, too).
These jobs are not meant to be "living wage" jobs, and the cry that they should be makes no sense, either, because, along with variables due to geographical location, a "living wage" for one adult is much less than that for a familly of two, three, four, etc. What's the employer to do? Inquire about family size before changing the salary accordingly?
Job specs and supply/demand set salaries, not family size.
I am a staunch believer, as I have gotten older and wiser, that the minimum wage should be enough for people to at least live on in what ever area they reside. Now the details are in the definition of "live on" of course, but it is shameful to pay a wage that forces some people to live close together in huge groups just to be able to pay the rent and subsidize their food stamps, or a wage that forces people to live in shelters or in conditions that may be dirty, unsafe, or dangerous. We have created an impovershed population over several generations by paying so little in so many fields that the serfs really have no way to get out.
Why in the world, as a society, do we feel that fields like CNAs, Security Guards, and many many other similar jobs are so unimportant that the employees are paid so little. Do we really feel that restaurant employees should be forced to beg for tips and grovel to unreasonable customers just to have a hope of getting by?? Nothing worse than a field that you may want to work in, or enjoy working in, but are almost worked to death in because the management knows you have no where else to go...
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.
before changing the salary accordingly?
