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.
Many who work now under any proposed increased minimum wage level would lose their jobs. It would probably exasperate the black teenage employment rate.
But the minimum wage is supposed to be temporary, a training wage, for teens, right?
So high turnover should protect incumbent jobholders from losing them.
But the minimum wage is supposed to be temporary, a training wage, for teens, right?
So high turnover should protect incumbent jobholders from losing them.
Where do you get that idea? There is a large number of unskilled or low-educated workers out there, and sometimes, the only thing they can do is work low-skill or low-education positions--many of which are minimum wage or just above. Even in my "skilled" position I make barely above minimum wage.
There is this belief that the only people working minimum wage jobs is teenagers, and the only people hiring at minimum wage are fast-food restaurants and retail stores. A little ridiculous. A lot ridiculous.
People are in positions where they have little choice but to work for three, five, ten years at a minimum wage job (or two) in order to support themselves, families, pay bills, and if they can manage, even go to school so they can become marginally more educated.
Letting the minimum wage sit stale as inflation increase and cost of living increases is absolutely asinine. You can't have an economy that grows if a large consumer base is spending more and more of their income on increase cost of living and have a rapidly shrinking slush-fund to spend elsewhere. Again, just absolutely asinine.
I think we are MISbuilt, not OVERbuilt. I rent a 12 x 10 room with four other people in a 1,200 square foot house, and the person from whom I rent has 500 sf all to himself. So I definitely do not feel overbuilt.
Historically 60% of the population was home owners. At the peak of the last bubble 70% were. So we had 1/6 to many people in houses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
Yes, the zoning codes desperately need reform - they are designed to prevent poor people from owning homes. If that's not class warfare, what do you call it?
Back just after WWII the size of houses were small. Home builders had to keep making money one way to do this was for the size of houses need to keep getting bigger. It is the nature of rich people to get richer. It is the nature of poor people to get poorer. There needs to be a mechanism to keep putting wealth back into the poor so that the rich can keep accumulating it. We don’t need to make the rich poor and the poor rich, we just need to feed the beast.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
That doesn't require a whole re-write, just add some zoning for smaller lots. (Put that zoning on the wrong side of the tracks if you'd like.)
I hear you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
There is a backlog of MISbuilt houses. As long as NOBODY is addressing the housing needs of low-income singles,
OK if minimum wage got you $60k a year then you could afford to buy one of those mis-built houses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
homes will continue to be misbuilt, and low-income singles will be denied opportunity to buy homes and will face excruciating rents. Since new construction has slowed to a trickle, supply will not be sufficient to provide relief for years from soaring rents.
That is why we need to raise the mini9mum wage. If it were high enough you could buy a house for yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
If we are OVERbuilt, why are 26% of renters paying more than half their income for housing?
Because we are over built in houses and under built in rental apartments. Vacant houses over rented rooms and apartments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
From my perspective, I need all the housing the private sector can provide, and there isn't nearly enough housing.
Many who work now under any proposed increased minimum wage level would lose their jobs. It would probably exasperate the black teenage employment rate.
If we were to up the minimum wage far enough to start pushing the price of houses up and to nothing else besides this then you are correct. However and this is a big but, if we give money to everyone at the same time as we up the minimum wage then we will have a spike in consumer spending and with that a spike in employment as well.
We also need to be engaging in some protectionism. A simple and effective way of reducing and reversing the trade imbalance is with a high savings rate. If we had a national savings plan that is a flat tax that you could get 100% back if you put it into certificates of deposit in credit unions then we could be saving at a rate higher than the domestic demand for debt calls for. The credit unions would then be obliged to buy debt in foreign countries. The people in those countries would then be obliged to buy our products with the debt. Set the savings rate correctly and we get balanced trade.
We are headed into a new bubble. We are also in a liquidity trap. More debt makes the economy contract not grow. If you want the economy to grow from where we are at now then we need more income and less debt. Writing off a bunch of debt as bad is bad for business. So if we simply inflate wages far enough then the current debt load is far more sustainable. Also if we put more money into circulation without increasing the debt load then we can get a positive multiplier on the money. I think that the new bubble will happen as the economy is stagnant or continues to contract.
We need to keep new debt from accruing as we get full employment and economic growth. The old-fashioned way of doing this is with higher interest rates. The government can’t afford higher interest rates now. But if, not when, but if the feds QE (Whatever) and 0.25% interest rates gain some traction we will need to raise the interest rates. This will bow the federal budget wide open. We need to raise the interest rates without raising the interest rates. So tax the payment of interest on personal as well as corporate debt, including bank to bank loans. This will up the privet interest rates with raising the public interest rates. Also it will increase the tax base for the government and that is desperately needed.
I think people do deserve a living wage. Before FDR died, he was trying to pass a new bill of workers rights to provide this. People need to be able to work and make ends meet. The real value of wages has stagnated over the cost of living for the past few decades. If people could get jobs and make an honest living without public assistance, more would do so, and there should be incentives for that as well as work programs for the lazy people to at least recruit them to clean up the city, paint things, etc.
I would say that teens living with their parents would not need a high minimum wage, but one based on their life experience. Consider also someone like me at 56, who made more per hour for a job 15-20 years ago than what the market is offering now for new hires, while all expenses have at least doubled, if not more. Maybe companies can evaluate prospective hires for their skills and choose between them on that basis, and have to pay them a rate based on experience, increasing with age and experience, and have some sort of affirmative action program that they had to hire a certain percentage across the age spectrum, from teens to early 60's. Also, perhaps if the city/county had a household profile (how many people living in the household and the rent/expenses), they could set the minimum wage from that for each person and force the employers to pay at least a base rate based on need, as a condition of them doing business in the area (the young would get the least and the older more), but guaranteeing a living wage for the household. It's probably socialism, but if it would cut down welfare they may actually be able to subsidize some hiring as well.
If we were to up the minimum wage far enough to start pushing the price of houses up and to nothing else besides this then you are correct. However and this is a big but, if we give money to everyone at the same time as we up the minimum wage then we will have a spike in consumer spending and with that a spike in employment as well.
We also need to be engaging in some protectionism. A simple and effective way of reducing and reversing the trade imbalance is with a high savings rate. If we had a national savings plan that is a flat tax that you could get 100% back if you put it into certificates of deposit in credit unions then we could be saving at a rate higher than the domestic demand for debt calls for. The credit unions would then be obliged to buy debt in foreign countries. The people in those countries would then be obliged to buy our products with the debt. Set the savings rate correctly and we get balanced trade.
We are headed into a new bubble. We are also in a liquidity trap. More debt makes the economy contract not grow. If you want the economy to grow from where we are at now then we need more income and less debt. Writing off a bunch of debt as bad is bad for business. So if we simply inflate wages far enough then the current debt load is far more sustainable. Also if we put more money into circulation without increasing the debt load then we can get a positive multiplier on the money. I think that the new bubble will happen as the economy is stagnant or continues to contract.
We need to keep new debt from accruing as we get full employment and economic growth. The old-fashioned way of doing this is with higher interest rates. The government can’t afford higher interest rates now. But if, not when, but if the feds QE (Whatever) and 0.25% interest rates gain some traction we will need to raise the interest rates. This will bow the federal budget wide open. We need to raise the interest rates without raising the interest rates. So tax the payment of interest on personal as well as corporate debt, including bank to bank loans. This will up the privet interest rates with raising the public interest rates. Also it will increase the tax base for the government and that is desperately needed.
People want to destroy welfare because for some, going on welfare is more profitable than getting a job. This isn't a problem with welfare, it's a problem with employers. If you're paying so little that people can't afford to work, especially because in many states, their is no worker rights, something needs to change--and it's not the welfare people require to survive.
People want to destroy welfare because for some, going on welfare is more profitable than getting a job. This isn't a problem with welfare, it's a problem with employers. If you're paying so little that people can't afford to work, especially because in many states, their is no worker rights, something needs to change--and it's not the welfare people require to survive.
millions of people abuse welfare, worker right are nothing more then the rights to be lazy!! unproductive and creats dependency on the government!!!!!
People want to destroy welfare because for some, going on welfare is more profitable than getting a job. This isn't a problem with welfare, it's a problem with employers. If you're paying so little that people can't afford to work, especially because in many states, their is no worker rights, something needs to change--and it's not the welfare people require to survive.
Upping pay will make more tax revenue. Good for everyone. Saving more money in the banking system not the stock market will tend to balance trade and with that stop the outsourcing of jobs, again good for everyone. Taxing the payment of interest on debt will add to the tax base and keep the rates low on the public debt and make rates higher on privet debt. Good for everyone. Print money and give it to everyone. People will spend a lot of it and that will make the economy grow. Good for everyone.
Wage/price inflation isn’t good for people that saved money. So if we are targeting a 200% inflation then give a savings voucher for 100% of people’s savings up to say $100K. That is if they have cash savings if it is in stuff that is likely to inflate on its own then no need to give them a voucher.
We have been having asset inflation for the past 30 years. It is time for a matching wage price inflation to balance things out.
Many who work now under any proposed increased minimum wage level would lose their jobs. It would probably exasperate the black teenage employment rate.
Not quite. Minimum wage jobs generally have high turnover, and it is unlikely that incumbent employees will lose jobs.
Job losses will be experienced by new entrants (or re-entrants) into the workforce, who will find a smaller pool of available jobs.,
Yes it would exacerbate the black teenage unemployment rate, but the minimum wage - at least not today - is not about teens, it is about adults trying to earn a living.
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.
