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.
Regarding your commenting of USA importing “unskilled workers”, those foreign-born legal and illegal persons are eager to work under conditions and wage rates that are unacceptable to persons born in the USA. Employers prefer them and/or cannot function without them. When those legal and/or illegal foreign-born are the majority of the labor pool for such jobs in some USA localities or industries, persons born in the USA put themselves at disadvantage if they seek or accept such jobs.
What? If that is true, could not the same thing be said of unskilled workers putting themselves at a disadvantage in attempting to compete against other workers with more skills, thereby destroying the idea that they should be paid a specified livable rate, regardless of their value and ability to compete and produce?
You really do want your cake and eat it too, dontcha?
Rachel976, employers are trying to import trained skilled workers because we don't produce enough of our own.
Among what we do seem to agree upon is USA's need to improve our training and educational systems. They have failed us.
Any extent of improving a nation's training and educational systems is no less reflected by the extents of benefits to their economic and social well-being. Other nations do this in manners superior to our own.
Our declining workforce is indeed a direct result of the failure of our education system, and a direct reflection of the leftist mentality that has controlled education for several decades, and indoctrinating the last several generations of our young people with Marxist philosophy, which is on display so glaringly in this very discussion.
Yes indeed, our colleges and universities are producing drastically reduced numbers of engineers, scientists, and other 21st century technologically skilled graduates, while dramatically increasing the number of snowflakes who require “safe spaces” from the dangers of words and perceived micro aggressions, who have emotional breakdowns at the mere sighting of a ball cap with Make America Great Again, embroidered on it.
While the question of, what do I want to do for a career, has always been one of the more complex decisions a young person is faced with making ... for an astounding number today, they’re now struggling with gender identity, toxic masculinity, prejudice, perceived rampant racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamaphobia, and the list keeps growing.
Wonder where the problem is?
I am forced to agree with Comrade Bernie on one point ... college education should be free, cuz nobody should pay a dime for this crap.
Bravo Comrade, spoken like a true communist! Karl would be proud. “From each according to his ability (employer) to each according to his needs(worker). This is precisely what you are saying, even if you don’t realize it.
While always promising utopia to the common man, the results of communism is stagnation, degradation, and massive death measured in the tens of millions! And there is simply no bloody excuse for being so totally oblivious to that factual history, given its many examples and mirror image failures.
Read a damned book, or take the easy way, and watch a documentary on Stalin’s little utopia, and the unimaginable level of suffering and death caused by his Marxist policies, particularly enlightening in his war against the Russian farmers, and how that all turned out. You might want to review Mao, and his little utopia in China, while you’re at it.
So it's better and safer for the country when people who have to work for $7.25 an hour, get on food stamps and in government subsidized housing.
Last edited by StillwaterTownie; 08-05-2019 at 02:23 AM..
At $15 an hour, there is interest from a higher tier of worker who may replace someone with fewer skills. IE the job does not go away but the lowest skilled worker does.
Bravo Comrade, spoken like a true communist! Karl would be proud. “From each according to his ability (employer) to each according to his needs(worker). This is precisely what you are saying, even if you don’t realize it.
While always promising utopia to the common man, the results of communism is stagnation, degradation, and massive death measured in the tens of millions! And there is simply no bloody excuse for being so totally oblivious to that factual history, given its many examples and mirror image failures.
Read a damned book, or take the easy way, and watch a documentary on Stalin’s little utopia, and the unimaginable level of suffering and death caused by his Marxist policies, particularly enlightening in his war against the Russian farmers, and how that all turned out. You might want to review Mao, and his little utopia in China, while you’re at it.
What does all that have to do with communism?! Do you really think people still buy into that old tactic of putting anything one does not like into the commie drawer?!
I don't even have a problem with communism, if it is implemented well. Your Marx quote is not very realistic in the original sense because the whole idea of abundance and thus free this and that is unrealistic and even undesirable in terms of the environment. But the saying can make sense in a modern interpretation, namely that those who have a lot can give a lot, and those who don't have a lot are more on the receiving end.
I have no problem with that as I am not a social darwinist. I am realistic. Humans are very diverse. There is no point in pretending everyone has the potential to become an achiever. let alone overachiever, that small caste of maniacs that are pushing our world to the brink. There will always be a certain percentage of the population that for all kinds of reasons will never be productive, successful, etc. Yet, they will not go away, nor do I as a member of a civilized human society want to see them impoverished, ill, etc.
Also, when some people complain about financing a minimum wage, they don't mention the fact that many managers earn way too much. Money that could be redistributed to a certain extent.
I don't want and need to look down on others in order to feel proud of myself. I treat the street sweeper and the cashier at the supermarket with as much respect as I treat a suit, probably even with more respect.
You’re probably a nice person, given your leanings toward morality, and the desire to help the more economically challenged. Unfortunately, your idealism blinds you to the fatal flaws in your position, and how economics has no interest in, or connection to, morality or emotion. Supply and demand governs economics, and is neither moral or immoral. It just is.
I’ve explained why a proposed $15 FMW will ultimately harm the very persons its supposed to help, and provided an example showing how that will produce a very predictable outcome. Its not just an opinion, but an economic reality. Therefore, in my opinion, what is truly immoral is to ignore that reality, and place ideology and politics ahead of people and their best interests.
GuyNTexas, I'm not all that nice and altruistic, but I do subscribe to the idea, “we all do better when we all do better”. I believe my arguments in favor of the minimum wage rate are logical rather than moral or emotional.
The federal minimum wage rate is a minimum. It does not control product prices or wages and is not among the primary factors that affect the U.S. Dollars rate of inflation. Regardless if the federal minimum rate is or is not increased, annual inflation does occur.
Supply of labor, demand for labor, and the federal minimum wage rate are all factors affecting wage differentials in the USA. If there's a scarcity of labor for any job, the minimum rate has no effect upon the job's wage rate. Regardless of any labor surplus, the wage rate of a USA job subject to the federal minimum rate, may not legally be driven below that rate.
I find opposition to the minimum wage rate to be illogical to an extent as to have led me to sincerely attribute that opposition as due to inability to fully consider the issue, and/or character disorder, and/or political pandering.
I disagree. I don't even buy that whole labor market crap. Humans are not fridges or toys.
Nobody forces anyone to hire someone. But if they do hire someone - so obviously there is a need for that person's labor - they should pay them decently, instead of turning them into working poor.
Ok, question .... who should decide what constitutes “decently”? And, can you concede that you would likely wind up with as many different answers to that question as persons asked?
But more importantly, please explain to me why you think an outside party should have the power to dictate the terms of labor agreement between two private parties, rather than recognize the right of those two private individuals to reach their own agreement?
The reality here is that misguided folks like you are advocating, and indeed demanding their own enslavement, and the rest of us, along with you!
If a person is not free to negotiate his own terms regarding the value if his labor, then someone else owns him!
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.
