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.
Will raising the minimum wage cause jobs to go first the way of the elevator operator, who was replaced by a button, and then the way of the gas station attendant, who was replaced by self service pumps?
Of course it will; it always has. Even Billy Carter (brother to Pres) knew that, as he said, "Some people just aren't worth 5 dollars an hour". Or 10.
The minimum wage should not be fiddled with. And I suspect Obama knows that. He announced a pay raise to $10/hour and it affected exactly no one. It only applies to anyone who may be hired as a government contractor in the future, but not those currently working.
What he wants is for the Republicans to fight him about it. That way, the Republicans will lose.
Raising the minimum wage at all is a terrible idea.
Technology replaces workers. It happens whether the wage is $2/hour, $5/hour, or $20/hour. We live in a world where we need to cope with increasing labor obsolescence as a result of technology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by winkosmosis
That's right, it comes out of profits. More of the revenue (which the workers brought in) goes to wages rather than profit. That's why I said workers get a bigger share of the fruits of their labor.
The reason you think of it as someone else's money is that you've been conditioned to think of workers as "takers" rather than "makers". In your worldview, carefully created by the moneyed interests in this world, employers are the only "makers" and they hand down jobs like manna from heaven. But in reality, an employer only hires a person because that person's work is valuable to the business. You hire someone to make money, and you take some or most of that money. What we're saying is that workers at the bottom need to keep more of the money they earn for the business, so they can live a decent life without handouts and government programs.
Yes. Earlier in this thread I posted about the long-term slide in real wages and the long-term growth in GDP. It seems clear that more than all of our productivity gains are going to capital and government (primarily capital). Policy changes should be instituted to tilt the scale and direct more of our gains to labor. It will be healthier for our society as a whole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by winkosmosis
I don't think YOU understand. You are talking about the differences in wages coming from someone else. That's a given. Every wage paid to everybody comes from someone else. It doesn't materialize out of thin air.
+1
Quote:
Originally Posted by winkosmosis
First of all, your numbers are way off. $45,000 in benefits? Are you crazy? Or are you thinking of Social Security? Can you provide a link to back up this $45000 or anything close?
Second of all, $15k isn't the market value of Tommy's wages. In an actual free market, he would demand enough wages to survive. But he doesn't because he receives some assistance in the form of food stamps and Medicare (not $30k).
Laying aside the flawed estimate, it is simply untrue that someone can live on benefits alone. Section 8 still requires people to pay rent and may not cover utilities. Food stamps won't necessarily cover all necessary food. Clothing and transportation are uncovered by these programs. I am not aware of any program that would provide the discretionary spending money necessary to pay for entertainment or social life. To describe the safety net as being akin to a luxury lifestyle is simply inaccurate.
It would be a humane market that provided wages for full-time labor that are adequate to cover the reasonable costs of living as a human being in society. Poorer countries than the United States manage it.
Technology replaces workers. It happens whether the wage is $2/hour, $5/hour, or $20/hour. We live in a world where we need to cope with increasing labor obsolescence as a result of technology.
Yes. Earlier in this thread I posted about the long-term slide in real wages and the long-term growth in GDP. It seems clear that more than all of our productivity gains are going to capital and government (primarily capital). Policy changes should be instituted to tilt the scale and direct more of our gains to labor. It will be healthier for our society as a whole.
+1
Laying aside the flawed estimate, it is simply untrue that someone can live on benefits alone. Section 8 still requires people to pay rent and may not cover utilities. Food stamps won't necessarily cover all necessary food. Clothing and transportation are uncovered by these programs. I am not aware of any program that would provide the discretionary spending money necessary to pay for entertainment or social life. To describe the safety net as being akin to a luxury lifestyle is simply inaccurate.
It would be a humane market that provided wages for full-time labor that are adequate to cover the reasonable costs of living as a human being in society. Poorer countries than the United States manage it.
Poorer than NEGATIVE $17,000,000,000,000 ?
I agree that a society with the ability to pay people fairly for their work should do so, but I don't think the economy will be unharmed if the federal minimum wage goes above $8.50/hr or so (2014 dollars).
I agree that a society with the ability to pay people fairly for their work should do so, but I don't think the economy will be unharmed if the federal minimum wage goes above $8.50/hr or so (2014 dollars).
When our economy produces $15.6+ trillion per year, I don't think that a lifetime debt of $17 trillion is the end of the world.
well you should have been saving more for the past few years. Cut back where needed - it can be done, but you may have to defer gratification (what a concept!)
if you can't save at least as fast as a car depreciates, you can't afford a car, period!
DO HAVE KIDS MR./MS. SELF-RIGHTEOUS??????????
Or, like so many people on this thread who love to dictate to others, do you only have yourself to think about?
Have 3 kids and then come back and talk to me, okay? And, like I said in another post, I'm quite used to walking/taking public transit. That's how I grew up. Unfortunately, many US cites have little/no public transit. I live in the suburbs, I work downtown. I would LOVE to use public transit to travel to work, but - big surprise!! - it doesn't exist in this city.
And DELAY GRATIFICATION? I could write a book on that.
And don't say ANYTHING to me about moving closer to work. I'd love to do that, too. Once again, if I only had MYSELF to think about (like I suspect YOU do), I'd do it in a flash. But my 3 kids need good schools, and the schools in the city are among the worst in the nation. So, out in the suburbs it is.
Okay, Dad/Mom?
Last edited by newdixiegirl; 02-26-2014 at 07:17 PM..
First of all, your numbers are way off. $45,000 in benefits? Are you crazy? Or are you thinking of Social Security? Can you provide a link to back up this $45000 or anything close?
Reading is fundamental. The number is assumed. It could be any number you want.
Quote:
let's assume that the cost of this safety net is $45,000 a year
Quote:
Second of all, $15k isn't the market value of Tommy's wages. In an actual free market, he would demand enough wages to survive. But he doesn't because he receives some assistance in the form of food stamps and Medicare (not $30k).
He can demand all he wants but he won't get it if his demand exceeds the market value of his labor.
It's not a flawed estimate. It was an assumption. You can make the number anything you want and it doesn't change the point that I made.
Quote:
it is simply untrue that someone can live on benefits alone.
You're simply wrong. There are plenty of people in this country that exist solely on government benefits.
Quote:
Section 8 still requires people to pay rent and may not cover utilities.
The only way someone on Section 8 pays rent is if they choose to live somewhere that costs more than their voucher. It is very common for a Section 8 renter to pay nothing.
Quote:
Food stamps won't necessarily cover all necessary food.
And you'd be wrong again. It is not just possible, it is easy for food stamps to cover all necessary food.
Show up to work everyday ( and that is everyday because vacations do not exist around here ) and do a great job and when you are 40 you will be making $9 an hour.Congratulations!
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.
