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.
Sorry, but I don't believe in artificial wage inflation. I think people should work at a wage that is reasonable in their local environments. Because what happens when an American company opens up a factory in a foreign village and offers $5/day salaries when the local standard is $1/day, the workers of the other local factories will put pressure on their management to match the $5/day salary, since they are doing the same work. But since the local factories don't have the retail outlets that the American company has, they don't have the revenue to support a 500% wage increase, and eventually, the local outfits are taken over by the American companies.
No skill jobs are just that. The pay is on scale with the skill required.
.
Sorry, but the notion that wages reflect the skills required to do a job is laughable. Wages are not necessarily a reflection of the skills required and are even less a reflection of the job's value to society which is what I believe wages should reflect. Wages are much more a function of the forces of supply and demand. Unfortunately, this often translates into jobs that don't benefit society, or which actually harm the general welfare, earning higher incomes than those jobs which are socially beneficial. For example, an advertising executive is going to make a lot more money than a teacher or a family physician.
A high skilled job may have a lower wage than a lower-skilled job if that high-skilled job is in a less profitable sector of the economy or if there are a lot of people who have developed those skills relative to the lower-skilled job. Several jobs in the non-profit and educational sectors are of high-social value and require high-skill levels but, unfortunately, don't pay very well. For example, people who want to work with a non-profit NGO that engages in poverty alleviation work isn't going to get paid all that much; someone with much less education can make a lot more if they go into the proper industry.
I believe that wages should better reflect the social value of the job they are applied to. Whats more, I believe that it is immoral that we don't guarantee a living wage for all; in a country this wealthy every individual, especially every working individual, should be guaranteed a wage adequate enough to meet their basic needs.
Sorry, but the notion that wages reflect the skills required to do a job is laughable. Wages are not necessarily a reflection of the skills required and are even less a reflection of the job's value to society which is what I believe wages should reflect. Wages are much more a function of the forces of supply and demand. Unfortunately, this often translates into jobs that don't benefit society, or which actually harm the general welfare, earning higher incomes than those jobs which are socially beneficial. For example, an advertising executive is going to make a lot more money than a teacher or a family physician.
A high skilled job may have a lower wage than a lower-skilled job if that high-skilled job is in a less profitable sector of the economy or if there are a lot of people who have developed those skills relative to the lower-skilled job. Several jobs in the non-profit and educational sectors are of high-social value and require high-skill levels but, unfortunately, don't pay very well. For example, people who want to work with a non-profit NGO that engages in poverty alleviation work isn't going to get paid all that much; someone with much less education can make a lot more if they go into the proper industry.
I believe that wages should better reflect the social value of the job they are applied to. Whats more, I believe that it is immoral that we don't guarantee a living wage for all; in a country this wealthy every individual, especially every working individual, should be guaranteed a wage adequate enough to meet their basic needs.
So many things wrong here. Not the least of which is where in the world would non-profit NGO's acquire the money to pay their workers what they are worth to society?
As far as your second point saying that everyone "should be guaranteed a wage adequate enough to meet their basic needs", the truth of the matter is that companies don't exist for the sake of employing people. Their main reason for existence is to turn a profit, and if they don't turn a profit, they can't employ people. It's as simple as that.
So many things wrong here. Not the least of which is where in the world would non-profit NGO's acquire the money to pay their workers what they are worth to society?
As far as your second point saying that everyone "should be guaranteed a wage adequate enough to meet their basic needs", the truth of the matter is that companies don't exist for the sake of employing people. Their main reason for existence is to turn a profit, and if they don't turn a profit, they can't employ people. It's as simple as that.
Then I would be fine with the goverment stepping up and helping to fill the rest of the money required.
I believe that wages should better reflect the social value of the job they are applied to. Whats more, I believe that it is immoral that we don't guarantee a living wage for all; in a country this wealthy every individual, especially every working individual, should be guaranteed a wage adequate enough to meet their basic needs.
Ok, it is clear that is arguement is merry-go-rounding. For the last 15 pages we've been arguing whether minimum wage provides you the means to have your basic needs met. Now I see it is clear that the real debate is, what are ones basic needs.
From what I'm seeing, those arguing against me have the opinion that basic needs includes: vehicle, child care, healthcare, residence in a safe/not run down neighborhood, and the luxury to not live paycheck to paycheck (meaning some form of savings).
I disagree, in my opinion, a job paying minimum wage shouldn't afford that kind of luxury. Everything I mentioned above is luxury beyond imaginable for many people on this planet. Basic needs means you aren't starving to death and sleeping on a sewer vent, in my opinion. The other things mentioned are luxuries we have developed as a norm in this country because of our culture to take advantage of freedom to make a life for ourselves.
Think it is an accident our economy has been the top performer for the last century? No, it is from hard work and innovation, and the freedom to do so.
Before I get flamed from people talking about hard working jobs that should be able to afford HC or whatnot, we are talking minimum wage, not low paying. Basically: fastfood, wal-mart greeter, movie ticket stub tearer, waitress/waiter.
Plenty of population growth to take these jobs (i.e. teenagers), a little hard work and dedication (showing up on time, working hard, not skipping days, and applying yourself) will get you off minimum wage pretty quickly.
So many things wrong here. Not the least of which is where in the world would non-profit NGO's acquire the money to pay their workers what they are worth to society?
As far as your second point saying that everyone "should be guaranteed a wage adequate enough to meet their basic needs", the truth of the matter is that companies don't exist for the sake of employing people. Their main reason for existence is to turn a profit, and if they don't turn a profit, they can't employ people. It's as simple as that.
Hence the reason I'm a Social Democrat. Too much welfare responsibility already falls on companies; businesses should not have to provide pensions and healthcare to their employees. Rather, that is the role the government should play as it does in most European countries. Universal healthcare and expanded pensions via social security would reduce the burden placed on businesses thus allowing for higher wages.
That aside, I am bothered by an economic system where people are paid not by their value to society but by their value to profit. I recognize that businesses don't exist merely for the sake of employing people, but government policies can and should be used to encourage them to employ people and pay them living wages. Tax incentives and subsidies can help achieve this. More controversially, profit caps and caps on CEO pay can help ensure that employees get their fair share: a company that is making a profit of 30% can afford to redistribute some of that to their employees rather than putting it all into CEO and board member pay.
Even if you are opposed to that, as I said, tax incentives and subsidies (combined with removing healthcare and pensions from being a responsibility of employers to being the responsibility of government) can help ensure that a living wage is affordable for companies to pay to their employees. You know, a number of European social democracies have higher standards-of-living than we do here, guarantee a living wage, provide universal healthcare and retirement insurance and still manage to have a competitive, vibrant private sector!
Finally, the full weight of paying people according to their value to society doesn't have to fall entirely on businesses. Businesses are geared towards profit and therefore it is often the case that those who are doing things that may not be good for society get paid more than those who do good things for society (again, the salary of an advertising executive compared to the salary of a high school teacher). To partially remedy this and make socially-desirable jobs more attractive, the government can provide more benefits (in the form of subsidies, debt forgiveness, tax exemptions, etc) to individuals who are in low-paying, high-skilled socially desirable jobs. If you are in a non-profit NGO doing charitable work, the government should tax your income less and perhaps provide other incentives to remain in that job.
Then I would be fine with the goverment stepping up and helping to fill the rest of the money required.
Then they would no longer be NGO's. They would become just another ineptly run government bureaucracy. And besides, where do you think the government's money comes from? And how do we settle on whose job provides the greatest amount of social value?
Hence the reason I'm a Social Democrat. Too much welfare responsibility already falls on companies; businesses should not have to provide pensions and healthcare to their employees. Rather, that is the role the government should play as it does in most European countries. Universal healthcare and expanded pensions via social security would reduce the burden placed on businesses thus allowing for higher wages.
According to my latest Social Security statement, the fund will be depleted at approximately the time I am eligible for full benefits, so forgive me for explicitly stating that replacing my company pension with yet another one run by the government is a horrible horrible idea.
Quote:
That aside, I am bothered by an economic system where people are paid not by their value to society but by their value to profit. I recognize that businesses don't exist merely for the sake of employing people, but government policies can and should be used to encourage them to employ people and pay them living wages. Tax incentives and subsidies can help achieve this. More controversially, profit caps and caps on CEO pay can help ensure that employees get their fair share: a company that is making a profit of 30% can afford to redistribute some of that to their employees rather than putting it all into CEO and board member pay.
Profit cap??? You'd just be setting our economy up for failure. Not just because businesses large and small exist to turn a profit, but our country's economic growth is driven by profit. Profits are what enable businesses to expand and employ more people. If they don't expand, then our future generations are left with a ****ty job market (as if we aren't already screwing them over enough by leaving them with a ginormous Federal debt). CEO salary caps, along with company profit caps, in the strictest sense, halt a company's performance in its tracks. because success is now punished instead of rewarded. The end result: the productivity of our country's work force takes a nose dive because there is no incentive to achieve any more than the government says to.
Quote:
Even if you are opposed to that, as I said, tax incentives and subsidies (combined with removing healthcare and pensions from being a responsibility of employers to being the responsibility of government) can help ensure that a living wage is affordable for companies to pay to their employees. You know, a number of European social democracies have higher standards-of-living than we do here, guarantee a living wage, provide universal healthcare and retirement insurance and still manage to have a competitive, vibrant private sector!
One question: how do we balance a Federal budget having both subsidies to work in "socially valuable" positions, AND universal health care of acceptable quality, AND sustainable retirement insurance that won't go bankrupt before the third generation draws benefits? We can't balance our budget having none of the above.
Quote:
Finally, the full weight of paying people according to their value to society doesn't have to fall entirely on businesses. Businesses are geared towards profit and therefore it is often the case that those who are doing things that may not be good for society get paid more than those who do good things for society (again, the salary of an advertising executive compared to the salary of a high school teacher). To partially remedy this and make socially-desirable jobs more attractive, the government can provide more benefits (in the form of subsidies, debt forgiveness, tax exemptions, etc) to individuals who are in low-paying, high-skilled socially desirable jobs. If you are in a non-profit NGO doing charitable work, the government should tax your income less and perhaps provide other incentives to remain in that job.
Same question as above. Where would the government find the capital to reconcile these "socially valuable" jobs with their supposed monetary value? And as I posed in my previous post, how do we determine just how much one should be paid according to their social value? Seems like a very subjective figure.
OK, I did not read the 25 pages of posts (normally I do but I'm not feeling so well tonight) so probably everything I will say has been said already but here goes.
It a totally free market system a persons wage will be determined by their productivity. If you can make more money for your boss then he can afford to pay you more. If someone else can make the same money for your boss then your wage will not go above what the otehr person will work for or else the boss will hire him instead of you. Therefore there are two factors that cause certain people to make less than enough money to have a "livable wage": lack of skills and labor competition.
A lot of no-skill/low-skill jobs are done by illegal immigrants. If we completely shut down that revolving door that would raise wages for some jobs. In Palm Beach Florida you see white non-hispanic kids working in fast food restaurants. They were making $7.5 to $9.00 an hour back when the minimum wage was $5.50. That is because there was a lack of labor. Strange though that liberals never seem to want to help the working poor by enforcing our immigration laws.
The other factor is that lack of skills means a worker can only produce so much and that the limit of productivity they provide to their boss means it limits how much he can afford to pay him. To artificially FORCE the boss to pay the worker more means you are forcing him (and ultimately those who buy his products) to subsidize the worker. What masqurades as compassion for the unskilled worker is really a cry to extort the consumer indirectly. That's not compassion, it's socialism-- which is just armed robbery without the overt force. Redistribution of income won't grow the net wealth of the economy nor will it make the worker more productive. The only legitimate way for the worker to earn more money is to increase his productivity. To see this in an easy example consider how much you would pay (per hour) to tow sets of construction workers. One set have basic tools (hammers, shovels, etc.). The other set have bulldozers, backhoes, etc. Which would you pay more? One of them will finish the job in a day but the other one will take 25 days. Greater productivity = greater pay.
Too much welfare responsibility already falls on companies; businesses should not have to provide pensions and healthcare to their employees. Rather, that is the role the government should play as it does in most European countries. Universal healthcare and expanded pensions via social security would reduce the burden placed on businesses thus allowing for higher wages.
I agree that businesses should not have to provide pensions. Looking at it another way, I don't believe employees should have to hope a pension fund will be managed and securely available to them when they retire. I disagree that it is the job of government. I beleive it is the job of each person to plan for there retirement. Companies can compete for employees by offering to contribute to 401k plans and other retirement options. When you say it is the government's job remember that the government doesn't have any money of its own. It only takes money from the population and redistributes it to the popultaion after deducting its large handling fee in incompetence and waste. I think most individuals could manage their money much better than the government. I don't know any individual who runs personal deficits anywhere near what our government does.
Quote:
That aside, I am bothered by an economic system where people are paid not by their value to society but by their value to profit. I recognize that businesses don't exist merely for the sake of employing people, but government policies can and should be used to encourage them to employ people and pay them living wages. Tax incentives and subsidies can help achieve this. More controversially, profit caps and caps on CEO pay can help ensure that employees get their fair share: a company that is making a profit of 30% can afford to redistribute some of that to their employees rather than putting it all into CEO and board member pay.
Who determines their 'value to society' ? Some people value sex from prostitutes enough to risk imprisonment and the breakup of their marriage enough to go to them. Should prostitutes be subsidized by the populous at large?
CEO caps would not automatically mean more money would go to the employees. Most likely the money would go in to reducing the cost of the final product or service offered to the consumer. That is the most likely scenario because if even one company did this then all of their competitors would have to do that as well or they would be at a disadvantage. There could be other unintended effects. Perhaps the same high quality CEOs agreed to work for less instead of just going overseas and managing foreign companies.
Quote:
Finally, the full weight of paying people according to their value to society doesn't have to fall entirely on businesses. Businesses are geared towards profit and therefore it is often the case that those who are doing things that may not be good for society get paid more than those who do good things for society (again, the salary of an advertising executive compared to the salary of a high school teacher). To partially remedy this and make socially-desirable jobs more attractive, the government can provide more benefits (in the form of subsidies, debt forgiveness, tax exemptions, etc) to individuals who are in low-paying, high-skilled socially desirable jobs. If you are in a non-profit NGO doing charitable work, the government should tax your income less and perhaps provide other incentives to remain in that job.
Again you have the problem of determining who makes the decision of 'value' I much prefer having the tired and true, tested for thousands of years free market make that decision rather than any human. Do I like the fact that an NBA player can make my annual salary in 10 minutes? No, but that's the way the market works. I suspect that if you picked me to make the decision of which jobs add value to society you would get a very different set of results than if you picked someone who watches reality shows, reads those magazines in the checkout lines, and knows who Jennifer Aniston is dating this week. (yuck).
I'll leave you with one argument for letting the market make all of these decisions rather than the govenment. If 1000 companies make these decisions then the damage of a wrong decision is minor and employees and consumers have recourse. If government makes the wrong decision the consequences are magnified since the government affects us all and there is no recourse, other than moving to another country (rather extreme).
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.
