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.
There are people who would like to return to the way America was before labor laws in the nineteenth century.
People who talk like that display absolutely zero understanding of Economics or History, and couldn't possibly understand Industrial Engineering or Industrial Psychology.
If all labor laws were eliminated tomorrow, nothing would happen very slowly.
The reason children were employed is not because they were cheaper, rather it was because there were no other workers available to work.
From its Colonial days through the end of the 19th Century, and even into the early 20th Century, 90% of Americans lived in rural areas, because 90% of Americans were engaged in agriculture or agricultural-related jobs. If someone wasn't physically working on a farm, then they were engaged in the transport, storage, milling, processing or sale of grains from farms.
90% of the population was necessary to produce enough food to feed every American, plus have a surplus to trade on the global market.
The implementation of mechanized farming was neither instantaneous nor wide-spread, as many farmers continued to use oxen, horse or mule-drawn plows into the 1940s, but mechanization, along with the advent of chemical fertilizers, chemical pesticides and chemical herbicides, eventually led to greater crop yields per acre, and a decrease in the number of persons needed to farm in order to produce a sufficient level of food for the entire population. It wasn't until the early 1960s when urban dwellers out-numbered rural dwellers 51% to 49%.
Over that time, the US experienced 0% Unemployment for extended periods of time. Everyone who wanted to work had a job. The only people who didn't work then were those who were too lazy to work, the alcoholics, the morphine users (opium users in the coastal port cities and those cities with large Chinese populations), and the mentally ill.
When the US began to ramp up its industrial capacity in the late 19th Century, there were no more workers available, so children were employed to make up for the lack of available labor.
Without children working, there's no way the US could have met the demands for economic growth necessary to become an Industrial and Colonial Power in the early 20th Century.
As the US underwent the process of electrification, and as electro-mechanical equipment such as lathes, borers, drill presses, millers, grinders and planers came into wide-spread use, the available labor increased, since one man could now do the job of 4 to 12 men (depending on the equipment they were using). The result was fewer children employed.
The fledgling fields of Industrial Engineering and Industrial Psychology began to make the work-place a safer environment and create happier workers. Simply increasing the lighting in a factory to a certain level of candle-watts resulted in an increase in worker-output, in some instances, by as much as 40%. The new designs of machinery and line operations by engineers, and even re-arranging the work-area increased productivity, and then increased it further with less down-time and fewer employee injuries and accidents.
Had Congress not enacted any labor laws, labor laws still would have existed, as there were numerous civil court cases wending their way through the system that would have achieved the same results. Jurisprudence was based on 800 years of English Common Law stemming from the Norman conquerors, and part of that included laws relating to the Master-Servant relationship, which US courts began adopting wholesale. It might have taken a few years longer, but the end result would have been the same.
I say raise the minimum wage to about $10 an hour. I really question if anyone at will lose their job over that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by movedintime
Without a livable wage, you and your taxes are subsidizing lower income workers. As in medicaid, government housing, and so on.
Why should the public subsidize so companies can pay low wages ?
Neither of you can answer the question: Why don't employers pay only the minimum wage and nothing higher?
If, and when, you ever figure out the answer, your understanding will improve 100-fold.
The undisputed fact is that the Cost-of-Living in the US varies tremendously across the more than 1,500 separately functioning economies in the US.
If only the US would be like Iceland, with a population of 379,000 and a uniform Cost-of-Living, or like Norway with a population of 5 Million and a uniform Cost-of-Living.
A study of HUD Section 8 data illustrates a point neither of you seem to understand.
Some single people qualify for HUD Section 8 housing even though they earn $23.60/hour ($49,150 annually) while other single people don't qualify for HUD Section 8 housing because at $7.70/hour ($16,001 annually) they earn too much money.
Again, the reason why that is true, is because the Cost-of-Living varies tremendously throughout the US.
$23.60/hour - $7.70/hour = $15.90/hour
That's how great the difference really is.
The federal government can never set a minimum wage that would be effective, and for that reason, the federal government should abolish the federal minimum wage and allow States to make that determination as they see fit. It is within the 10th Amendment right of the States to do so.
The federal government pays $520/month in SNAP benefits to a family of three.
To suggest that a family living in an high Cost-of-Living area derives the same benefit from $520/month as a family living in a low Cost-of-Living area is totally absurd and patently false.
For that reason, the federal government should cease the SNAP program and allow States to implement their own to prevent the federal government from harming those persons who actually need the benefits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
Middle class entitlements and defense spending account for the lion's share of our federal budget.
As I have stated for the last 11 years, defense spending is necessary to maintain your current Standard of Living and Life-Style.
If you want a substantially lower Standard of Living and lesser quality Life-Style, then cut defense spending.
Whether you believe that to be true or not is totally irrelevant, since your government believes it to be true:
The costs of not implementing this strategy are clear. Failure to meet our defense objectives will result in decreasing U.S. global influence, eroding cohesion among allies and partners, and reduced access to markets that will contribute to a decline in our prosperity and standard of living.
I certainly think a steeply progressive income tax would be nice.
There's also some country, maybe in Scandinavia, where there's a law governing corporate salaries, so that the top guys can't earn more than a particular ratio to the lowest salary or medium salary.
I certainly think a steeply progressive income tax would be nice.
There's also some country, maybe in Scandinavia, where there's a law governing corporate salaries, so that the top guys can't earn more than a particular ratio to the lowest salary or medium salary.
In the modern outsourced gig economy, companies would then fire all permanent staff at the bottom of the pay scale and simply contract out everything.
These wealth redistribution laws simply hasten the day when there will be no more permanent jobs, just millions of people scrambling for piece work doled out by a few super-rich corporate overlords.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
Prima facie evidence of having failed Econ 101. Or perhaps you never took it.
For having a Phd you are practically incomprehensible to me and I have a graduate degree from a university.
I’m sorry that you aren’t able to understand my post, but let me help you with it.
Your claims violate the most basic principles of economics, and as such, it is readily apparent that you either failed in your study of economics, or you never actually studied it.
If you weren’t able to understand that, perhaps you should pursue a refund for your graduate degree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63
You like to throw crap out there but you never actually make your point...if you really have one.
Ah, reneeh63, bless your heart. My point is perfectly clear. If you are also unable to understand what I posted, you too should look for a refund for your degree (assuming you have one).
I certainly think a steeply progressive income tax would be nice.
I agree, and I think the best way to structure it would be:
Little or no tax on income below and just above the poverty line
Low to moderate tax on income within the "middle class" range
A steeply increasing tax rate on income above "upper middle class" level
This would probably be even better than a "maximum wage" because there would be no incentive to re-classify the income to dodge the wage law, and it keeps the brackets modest across what would be a fair (but commensurable with work skills) range but much higher when you get to the top percentages of incomes.
I agree, and I think the best way to structure it would be:
Little or no tax on income below and just above the poverty line
Low to moderate tax on income within the "middle class" range
A steeply increasing tax rate on income above "upper middle class" level
This would probably be even better than a "maximum wage" because there would be no incentive to re-classify the income to dodge the wage law, and it keeps the brackets modest across what would be a fair (but commensurable with work skills) range but much higher when you get to the top percentages of incomes.
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.
