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.
Thanks for the education. I had to spend some time reading about molopsony economics/power. I appreciate threads that make me think and learn something new.
I don't agree with the article. The concept of no minimum wage would work quite well except for the fact that corporations/large employers have no social conscience. They respect only one thing, profits. They have learned from the Ferenghi. All the big box, fast food, etc would just pay nothing and let the tax-payers pick up the tab for ALL of their labor instead of just part of it. And there would never be a way to work your way up because they would never give you a raise that would make them pick up your salary. This would be the new world path to spectacular profits.
These same corporations are already exploiting the US by selling most of their product here while relocating their business and manufacturing to other countries to evade/avoid US taxes and salaries. Why should they be further rewarded by free labor? For the last 30 years or so they have received more 'welfare' than any other group and their profits have not trickled down to help the people one whit.
Any corporation/person/business in this world that is making a profit can afford to pay a living wage. And if you want to sell here, you can pay taxes here.
The fact still remains that technology and Globalization have left us with too many workers and too few jobs. And way too few jobs that pay enough to be worth having. I wonder how many of you have been forced down into these low wage jobs after having had decent work for years and years? I have and let me tell you, minimum wage work is hard. I worked harder for $9 per hour than I ever did for $50. I might have been tired when I came home from my real job but when I come home from my crappy job, I feel like I have been put through the wringer. My feet hurt so badly I feel like I am crippled for life. I have to stay home with my feet up so I can do it over again the next day. I hobble around at home like I am about 80. When I began my downward slide in the employment world in 2009 I had no varicose veins. Now I can't count them all on my fingers and toes. And no PTO or benefits either. I wonder how many of you could work for years without an hours worth of vacation? And I am much luckier than most of my co-workers. Most of them are working multiple jobs trying to support the family they had before the economy went south and they are still trying to pay off student loans.
Thanks for the education. I had to spend some time reading about molopsony economics/power. I appreciate threads that make me think and learn something new.
I don't agree with the article. The concept of no minimum wage would work quite well except for the fact that corporations/large employers have no social conscience. They respect only one thing, profits. They have learned from the Ferenghi. All the big box, fast food, etc would just pay nothing and let the tax-payers pick up the tab for ALL of their labor instead of just part of it. And there would never be a way to work your way up because they would never give you a raise that would make them pick up your salary. This would be the new world path to spectacular profits.
These same corporations are already exploiting the US by selling most of their product here while relocating their business and manufacturing to other countries to evade/avoid US taxes and salaries. Why should they be further rewarded by free labor? For the last 30 years or so they have received more 'welfare' than any other group and their profits have not trickled down to help the people one whit.
Any corporation/person/business in this world that is making a profit can afford to pay a living wage. And if you want to sell here, you can pay taxes here.
The fact still remains that technology and Globalization have left us with too many workers and too few jobs. And way too few jobs that pay enough to be worth having. I wonder how many of you have been forced down into these low wage jobs after having had decent work for years and years? I have and let me tell you, minimum wage work is hard. I worked harder for $9 per hour than I ever did for $50. I might have been tired when I came home from my real job but when I come home from my crappy job, I feel like I have been put through the wringer. My feet hurt so badly I feel like I am crippled for life. I have to stay home with my feet up so I can do it over again the next day. I hobble around at home like I am about 80. When I began my downward slide in the employment world in 2009 I had no varicose veins. Now I can't count them all on my fingers and toes. And no PTO or benefits either. I wonder how many of you could work for years without an hours worth of vacation? And I am much luckier than most of my co-workers. Most of them are working multiple jobs trying to support the family they had before the economy went south and they are still trying to pay off student loans.
I'm not looking to change your mind but I think you are looking at corporations incorrectly.
Corporations are created by individuals, so not only does it care about society, itds completely intertwined with it.
You see, corporations employ and pay people. Those people can maintain their families and support the economy as a result. Companies satisfy demand, they produce things we all consume. We have it pretty easy in the U.S. and don't even realize, but there are places where they dream of the stuff we take for granted.
Those profits you think they only care about is what's called capital. Those profits are deposited in an account via which these funds are borrowed and redeployed in the economy, helping drive growth and more jobs across industries.
As if the above was not enough, corporations pay taxes which helps the government provide to those in need.
There are corporations that act irresponsibly, but it's the fault of the law enforcer who choses to look the other way.
I came across an intersting article on Forbes today. It's basically an editorial based on an old NYT editorial that argues that minimum wage should be eliminated and instead suplemented with government programs designed to make up the difference.
"When he felt the time was ripe, President Roosevelt asked Secretary of Labor Perkins, 'What happened to that nice unconstitutional bill you had tucked away?'"
On Saturday, June 25, 1938, to avoid pocket vetoes 9 days after Congress had adjourned, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed 121 bills. Among these bills was a landmark law in the Nation's social and economic development -- Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA).
What are the effects of a ZERO Level Agrarian Economy transforming into a 2nd Level Industrial Economy, via the process of Electro-Mechanical Industrialization?
And while simultaneously electro-mechanically industrializing the 1st Level Economy?
As an economic advisor, what exactly would you be researching? 14th Century France? 18th Century Britain? 15th Century Spain? 17th Century German Duchies & Principalities?
None of them had electricity.
What knowledge or experience to you have to guide you through this process?
None.
You're in uncharted waters, you'll just have to wade through it.
Were mistakes made?
Oh, yes, they surely were. Many mistakes were clearly avoidable, but regretfully, some mistakes were unavoidable.
Finding fault is easy with eyes closed.
The emerging- and developing-States today, have the benefit of the knowledge and experiences gained by the 1st World in its economic development that took place about a century ago.
Hindsight is truly 20/20, but even so, without interference by the former federal government, everything would have worked itself out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeo123
Quote:
Perhaps the mistake here is to accept the limited terms of the debate. The working poor obviously deserve a better shake. But it should not surpass our ingenuity or generosity to help some of them without hurting others. Here are two means toward that end: Wage supplements. Government might subsidize low wages with cash or payments for medical insurance, pensions or Social Security taxes. Alternatively, Washington could enlarge the existing earned income tax credit, a â€negative†income tax paying up to $800 a year to working poor families. This would permit better targeting, since minimum-wage workers in affluent families would not be eligible.
Note: this quote was from an article quoted in the above story from 1987.
So the theory would be that while today you might make $8/hr, with the minimum wage eliminated, you would instead receive a lower wage, but more government benefits. This would help differentiate between the "teenage first job" minimum wage worker and the "supporting a family of four" minimum wage worker because tax status as a dependent would likely stop the teenager from claiming most of those benefits. Because it was tied to people working jobs(instead of just given to people below a certain income level which includes unemployed) it would result in people contributing to the economy and improving skills.
That's just Basic Income/Negative Income Tax nonsense repackaged and wrapped in soiled panty liners.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeo123
The drawback to an option like this would likely be that employers could potentially offer $0/hour jobs...
On what Planet? Your thread should be moved to the Unexplained Mysteries forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeo123
So which is the better approach? Higher Minimum wages even if it eliminates jobs/raises prices, or government assistance paid for via taxes?
False Dilemma/False Dichotomy A reasoner who unfairly presents too few choices and then implies that a choice must be made among this short menu of choices is using the false dilemma fallacy, as does the person who accepts this faulty reasoning.
Your inner-Göbbels is showing.
A better approach would be neither of the limited options you offer, which are destructive and counter-productive.
Your own government says there are 1,539 separate economies in the US.
When you admit that is true, and then when you come to accept that as truth, and then come to understand the ramifications and implications of that fact, perhaps we can have a rational discussion that is not based on nonsensical bigotry rooted in group-think ideology.
You are still missing my point. Forget about Portland - I really can't argue with you because I know zero about it. What I can tell you is that when the price of something goes up (homes??), there will be more building of it - at the general level. Portland does not represent the US, the US is pretty much still empty everywhere you go. And not every city in the US is full of liberal socialist fanatics, like those in the west coast and major cities.
Remember the housing bubble when prices were going up 20 to 30% a year? Well, there was building everywhere - so while prices were indeed going up - so was the supply. That is my point.
Where I live there are various developments, brand new, that are full of non middle income/wealthy people. So while maybe this is not the case in Portland, it may be the case somewhere else. But quite honestly, who says anyone needs new homes - people just need plain old homes. It doesn't matter if they are new or not.
At the end of the day, the market will satisfy the demand.
I live in the bay area. There is plenty of open space 50-70 miles away. Pretending it was availableto build, the commute would be 3-4 hours a day. Let's not even talk about gas. So sure the housing might be affordable to low wage people. But transportation would be cost prohibitive. You need a car, loads of time and gas money. You need about 2-3 full time minimum wage jobs to afford rent. How are you going to afford a car?
I live in the bay area. There is plenty of open space 50-70 miles away. Pretending it was availableto build, the commute would be 3-4 hours a day. Let's not even talk about gas. So sure the housing might be affordable to low wage people. But transportation would be cost prohibitive. You need a car, loads of time and gas money. You need about 2-3 full time minimum wage jobs to afford rent. How are you going to afford a car?
The solution is easy, move from there. Nobody is holding anyone at gunpoint. Not sure why anyone would want to live there anyway...
I'm not looking to change your mind but I think you are looking at corporations incorrectly.
Corporations are created by individuals, so not only does it care about society, itds completely intertwined with it.
You see, corporations employ and pay people. Those people can maintain their families and support the economy as a result. Companies satisfy demand, they produce things we all consume. We have it pretty easy in the U.S. and don't even realize, but there are places where they dream of the stuff we take for granted.
Those profits you think they only care about is what's called capital. Those profits are deposited in an account via which these funds are borrowed and redeployed in the economy, helping drive growth and more jobs across industries.
As if the above was not enough, corporations pay taxes which helps the government provide to those in need.
There are corporations that act irresponsibly, but it's the fault of the law enforcer who choses to look the other way.
In what sense? Wal-Mart and McDs employ thousands of people that would otherwise be unemployed. They produce goods at lower costs than most of their competitors, which benefit all of us.
Please understand that the higher the wages those employees get, the higher the prices we will end up paying. Increasing their salary will lower someone else's by the same amount. The idea of minimum wage damages the economy.
Moving is expensive. You can't afford to. I recommed reading Nickle and Dimed in America. I good "expose" on ehat living at minimum wage looks like.
Couldn't you work 60 hours a week for 2-3 months to save for a move?
If you're on that low an income, you probably have several roommates and not a lot of stuff - this actually reduces the cost of moving to a manageable $1,000.
A good cheap place, of the kind you could afford on $1k/month income after tax, would likely only require a security deposit of about $300.
Wouldn't the opposite be better? Raise the minimum wage so someone working full time on a minimum wage job doesn't need government assistance.Why should tax payers subsidize businesses paying wages below the COL?
sigh!?!?
I've explained this on the C.D. forums before when this issue comes up. I even thought about getting one of my old posts and re-posting it but I don't feel like it now.
You people sit on here and argue about a dilemma with out a problem or a solution. And there's not meant to be one.
As you know if taxpayers didn't subsidize businesses and they were forced to pay people enough to live without government assistance then they'll either raise their prices forcing you to subsidize the higher wages anyway or take the jobs away to a lower cost environment. Leaving the unemployed to be taken care of by government programs. Either way you pay.
So let's get rid of or abolish the minimum wage and have more jobs. That sounds fantastic except for the fact that even lower wages would require more government assistance for these same people.
So what do we do?
Nothing! What? Yes, nothing because there's nothing to be done. The way it's set up the people at the top of the heap have the house slaves paying for the field slaves no matter what you do.
You want to raise wages to a "living" wage you'll pay higher prices or lose the jobs.
You want lower wages for the lower classes? Have fun with higher taxes.
There's no way out. The people without enough skills to earn a decent wage. Which is well over half the population now will be subsidized by their fellow serfs no matter what. And the people at the top will keep getting richer. You know why?
Because that's how the system works. Them who have gets and them who don't, don't. It's the natural order of things for pretty much all of human history.
As George Carlin said, "They got you by the balls."
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.
