Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 149): The minimum wage is a ban on certain jobs. That means if you aren't skilled enough you are banned from working and contributing to the economy. That is my issue.

I don't understand. People who have no choice should suffer? People who can not find work in the field they were educated in should go without? People who have a kid at 17 and fight like hell to stay off food stamps should suffer?Besides all that, working, even for minimum wage, contributes to the economy.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 149): Nobody would pump any oil out because it would not be profitable to do so.

So why do they do it now if it is such a losing proposition? Exxon has consistently pulled in profits over the past 20 years. Or were those reports they were putting out just lies?

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 149): I'm not saying start everyone off at a million

But you did:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 109): Why stop at the living wage? Why not make it a millionaire wage? Then we'd all be rich right?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 150): I don't understand. People who have no choice should suffer? People who can not find work in the field they were educated in should go without? People who have a kid at 17 and fight like hell to stay off food stamps should suffer?Besides all that, working, even for minimum wage, contributes to the economy.

Where have a i suggested people should suffer, i genuinely don't know you are blathering on about?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 150): So why do they do it now if it is such a losing proposition? Exxon has consistently pulled in profits over the past 20 years. Or were those reports they were putting out just lies?

The reason they do it is because they are allowed to profit.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 150): But you did:

No i didn't. Anyone educated in the language of English should be able to realise that. I am beginning to think you aren't.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 120): Ah, so anyone making over $100K now is filthy rich and needs to be pulled down.

COme in, you're smarter than that and you understand the split between the top and the bottom. But for folks making minimum wage I guess they will see that those making $100K a year "filthy rich".

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 120): And by the way, labor costs consume about a third of a typical fast-food restaurant%u2019s revenue. Numerous studies show that when the minimum wage goes up, employers make do with fewer workers, and low-wage employees lose their jobs.

Numerous studies also show that when minimum wage goes up it lifts the wages and salaries of those above minimum wage as well. That generates more buying power and spending. Employers who cut staff instead of growing their business from that increased spending can cry all they want - some one else will come in and grab that increased revenues.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 120): Whenever the government tries to tell private business that the price of a commodity (such as labor) is anything other than the amount a person is willing to sell it and another is willing to pay for it, you will have such consequences.

When government fails to protect the bottom of the labor market you basically have serf labor.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 125): How about mandatory sterilization after the first child receives benefits.

Might be more politically correct to have diminishing returns on subsequent babies.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 130): I'm for no minimum wage. The benefit bill will be lower if people are actually working and contributing to the economy, than being banned from working for the crime of being unskilled. Companies have no obligation to pay any wage provided it's voluntary.

The minimum wage has an effect of pushing up wages and salaries above that base level. Raise the minimum wage and you see a following increase in those ranges above the minimum.

There is no reason to assume that these upper levels will be protected if the protected base is jerked out. I can see freezing and lowering of other wages - allowing them to move onto government benefits that you can pay for with your tax dollars.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 132): The vast majority of those 10% have had jobs as I have when we were young. Starting at mowing and trimming lawns, sacking groceries, working on Louisiana oil rigs during the summer (I'm lining up my 16 year old nephew for that job next summer).

When you're talking about the "Elite" you are talking about kids going to Europe for the summer, or at least the Hampton's. Do you think that W had to work in the oilfields during the summer? Really?

These days more people are mowing lawns to feed their family. I use a guy who mows as a second job and does a very good job. When I was a teenager I was the one mowing our yard. My Dad was kind enough to get me a chickweed rake so, after days of pulling those weeds out, we had the best looking yard on the block.

When I look around the grocery store I see a lot of adults sacking groceries - another "kid's job" from my youth shifting to adults because of the shrinking of the middle class.

And that oil field job - sometimes it is the son of a manager/exec in an oil company pulling a few strings. But in today's world it takes a decent paying job away from a man who wants to take care of his family. Hope your nephew enjoys his short term job.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 152): When you're talking about the "Elite" you are talking about kids going to Europe for the summer, or at least the Hampton's. Do you think that W had to work in the oilfields during the summer? Really?

Actually, yes. According to his autobiography, he worked summers on an oil rig for Circle Drilling Co. out of Lake Charles, LA. Same type of thing I did, funny enough.

I wonder what jobs Obama had as a youth. The only reference I could find is that he worked for a little while part time at a Baskin-Robbins.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 152): The minimum wage has an effect of pushing up wages and salaries above that base level. Raise the minimum wage and you see a following increase in those ranges above the minimum.

It doesn't. There is only one thing that pushes wages up, competition for employees, ergo supply and demand.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 144): What you are describing is modern day america.

Hardly. Modern day America (while far from perfect) isn't even close to the levels of poverty experienced 100 years ago.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 144): Not quite sure how you can tie any of the above to the minimum wage though.

It's quite easy...because there was no minimum wage and employers could perpetually pit employees against each other for ever decreasing salaries, people had little ability to save money or improve their lot in life. Further, wages were so low that parents were forced to put children to work (even very young children) because a family could not survive on a parent's wages alone.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 144): The minimum wage causes poverty because it entails outlawing jobs that otherwise would exist - forcing people into unemployment.

But all those jobs you think are "banned" would still leave people in poverty!! In fact, if wages went much lower than the minimum now, it would actually cost people more to have the job, then they actually get paid.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 144): However, the minimum wage is purely destructive.

I might agree with you if the minimum wage was set at some artificially high level. But with the way minimum wage is set in this country, it does little damage because the minimum is so extremely low as to have almost no effect.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 155): Hardly. Modern day America (while far from perfect) isn't even close to the levels of poverty experienced 100 years ago.

And do you think that is due to the economic model or due to the technological level of the time? (I notice you have conveniently ignored me pointing this out to you) There was no minimum wage in the UK in the 90s, there was a minimum wage in the US in the 1930s. Now are you going to tell me there was more poverty in the UK in the 90s than there was in late 1930s US?

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 155): It's quite easy...because there was no minimum wage and employers could perpetually pit employees against each other for ever decreasing salaries

How can you perpetually pit employees against each other? If companies offered perpetually low wages, then nobody would work for them, everyone would go and work for the competitor who was paying more.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 155): But all those jobs you think are "banned" would still leave people in poverty!!

I don't think they are banned, they are banned. That's what the minimum wage, it's a ban on low paid jobs. Yes those people might be in poverty, they'd be in even more poverty with no job though. That is why a negative income tax is far preferable to the minimum wage.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 155): I might agree with you if the minimum wage was set at some artificially high level. But with the way minimum wage is set in this country, it does little damage because the minimum is so extremely low as to have almost no effect.

It might do little damage, would you not prefer no damage though? That is the whole problem, you can't set it anywhere that it actually does it any good. If you set it below what everyone is getting paid anyway, there's no point in having it. If you set it above what some people are getting paid, some people might get a little more money, by virtue of that fact that others have been sacked.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 154): It doesn't. There is only one thing that pushes wages up, competition for employees, ergo supply and demand

Send the illegals packing and we will see a sharp rise in wages.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 156): And do you think that is due to the economic model or due to the technological level of the time?

I think it's a bit of both. Certainly, the technology of the time didn't lend itself to great wealth, but at the same time the economic model of the U.S. was very much against the working class and drove wages downward to unstable levels.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 156): If companies offered perpetually low wages, then nobody would work for them, everyone would go and work for the competitor who was paying more.

And why would a competitor pay more? It would just put them at a disadvantage. The competitor would pay the same wage and employees had little choice.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 156): It might do little damage, would you not prefer no damage though?

But you ignore that free market capitalism does it's own damage. Some of that damage is fine as it can drive ingenuity and innovation, but left to it's own devices capitalism inevitably self destructs. Things like the minimum wage create basic floors that prevent capitalism from totally running amok.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 158): I think it's a bit of both.

No it isn't, it's entirely due to technology. If we had the same economic model as we did back then we'd be richer. GDP per capita in 2000 was 7 times higher in real terms vs 1900.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 158): And why would a competitor pay more?

Because they want employees. If company A is paying someone 3 dollars an hour, and company B considered that a bargain rate, they'll offer 4 and steal their workforce. Company A will retaliate and offer 5, this continues until the wages approach the true value than an employee provides.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 158): but left to it's own devices capitalism inevitably self destructs

Not it doesn't. Government interference with capitalism causes it to self destruct. True capitalism is on the whole stable and positive. Don't think we have anything approaching free market capitalism today. For starters the government controls the money supply and the interest rates, so virtually every single transaction is influenced by the government from the off.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 159): If we had the same economic model as we did back then we'd be richer.

A few people would be richer no doubt, but the overall population....not so much. And of course, when the economy crashes routinely and our banking system collapses and wipes out most people's wealth, I doubt we'd be richer.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 159): True capitalism is on the whole stable and positive.

Yet all of the most stable and healthy nations, don't follow it. Gee I wonder why?

Under true capitalism, there would be no national defense, no police, no firefighters and no public schools. There would be no infrastructure or healthcare either. There would be no stability. The U.S. was closest to "true capitalism" in the 1800's, but paid a price for that in terms of having a highly unstable economy and society.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 159): Because they want employees. If company A is paying someone 3 dollars an hour, and company B considered that a bargain rate, they'll offer 4 and steal their workforce. Company A will retaliate and offer 5, this continues until the wages approach the true value than an employee provides.

Or CEO of company A would talk to CEO of company B and they'd both agree to pay 3 dollars an hour and enjoy more profits for themselves. Welcome to the real world...not the theory world you live in.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 159): Don't think we have anything approaching free market capitalism today.

You think there might be a reason for that?

In fact, the only countries that come close to free market capitalism are mostly 3rd world nations that are poverty stricken and incredibly weak.

Quoting mad99 (Reply 147): Sorry, i think you missed the point. These people do not want to work! The 'father' can't find a job and one of the reasons is he looks like a gang member. So how do you remove that problem? Don't dress like a gang member!!! I did not miss any point. We have what we have, how to change it? Maybe by more cases of poverty? Maybe by paying people dog wages, so they can collect more on welfare than for working? Maybe by paying someone 520K per week, 13 k per hour based on a 80 hour week? Maybe by nothing coming down, and all of it going up? Maybe by sending more of our jobs out of the country, so people cannot get a job, except minimum wage jobs at fast food joints, landscaping? Oops scratch the landscaping jobs. All the illegals have those wrapped up. Responsibility, work ethic, right and wrong

It worked once, not so now, as we can see by the title of this thread. I was raised with those principles, they could work for many more millions then. We have crippled the work ethic in millions who had it once. They have been tossed out of jobs where you could make a pay for living and supporting your family and forced into lower paying, lower respected jobs. You take a persons respect away, you see what we have in its place. Nobody gives a shit, you are a number, to be tossed aside for someone in China and many more places. Cannot you people see, they have taken away peoples self respect, without it, you are a loser. Look at the inner city and see where no self respect is getting us.

[Edited 2013-09-03 19:48:57]

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 154): It doesn't. There is only one thing that pushes wages up, competition for employees, ergo supply and demand.

Ridiculous, have you not noticed the world population count? Have you not noticed the automation in the workplace? Have you not noticed the numbers of unemployed here and elsewhere? Have you not noticed how we have sent the technology and machinery to every corner of the globe where there is cheap labor? Have you not noticed the wealth of the world gravitating away from the West and to the East? I suggest you do if you have children, family, they will pay the price for all this madness.


My children are somewhat safe economically because of their age and my good fortune. I worry about my grandchildren, they are 2 generations from me, and I did not make 520K a week to reap unbelievable wealth to protect my family for generations. I always wonder when the shit hits the fan, who will protect those who reaped those fortunes? They had better have their own army.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 162): I always wonder when the shit hits the fan, who will protect those who reaped those fortunes? They had better have their own army.

They already have their armies - of lawyers, accountants, financial institutions, PR teams.

Just look at how W kept cutting taxes while waging war on the credit card. A real Guns & Butter & Cake if there ever was one.

And look at how Romney can get his 401K to over $100 million - impressing even the financial guys.

We are now in a situation where the wealthy can pay the politicians (via "campaign contributions") a billion or so dollars because their reward is a trillion or so dollars.

I'm pretty protected because at 69 with 3 cancers behind me I probably won't last a long time. I do worry about my wife though, as her mother lived to 84.

The well being of our kids and grand kids will be based on just how far into the future this shrinking of the middle class goes on. And how long it takes non-whites to join with moderates and liberals to pull the system back to a responsible and moral position.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 163): I'm pretty protected because at 69 with 3 cancers behind me I probably won't last a long time. I do worry about my wife though, as her mother lived to 84.

I agree, we are not here forever, but we do worry about those we leave behind.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 163): The well being of our kids and grand kids will be based on just how far into the future this shrinking of the middle class goes on. And how long it takes non-whites to join with moderates and liberals to pull the system back to a responsible and moral position.

I agree, that is probably our only hope, that the have not's will band together and defeat the entrenched power structure. The power of the vote. Let us hope they learn how to use it and what power they really have with it.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 157): Send the illegals packing and we will see a sharp rise in wages.

The corporations will tell the legal workers that they have not choice but to work for the lowest wage. Mark my words.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 151): No i didn't. Anyone educated in the language of English should be able to realise that. I am beginning to think you aren't.

AAAAAAAANNNNNDDDD.... you are done. I showed you what you did, you denied it. I can deal with that. But, the name calling is where you are finished. Bye.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 163): The well being of our kids and grand kids will be based on just how far into the future this shrinking of the middle class goes on.

It will go on.
Bombardier is building a factory in Morocco to build aircraft parts, i think wire harnesses and they have one in Mexico.
JObs that any normal human can do now go to the lowest bidder so you need skills or something unique to make it.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 165): AAAAAAAANNNNNDDDD.... you are done. I showed you what you did, you denied it. I can deal with that. But, the name calling is where you are finished. Bye.

Sorry what name calling? You have failed to to distinguish between a (known answer) question and a statement. This led me to believe you aren't educated in the English language. I apologise if i have offended you, but i'm aware the US is a very diverse place and I know that having an American flag against your username doesn't necessarily mean English is your first language - it could very well be Spanish for example.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 160): A few people would be richer no doubt, but the overall population....not so much..

On the contrary, since the abandonment of market selected currencies (gold/silver) and the replacement with government backed currencies (Fiat) which have been printed into oblivion, workers' wages have stagnated considerably.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 160): And of course, when the economy crashes routinely and our banking system collapses and wipes out most people's wealth, I doubt we'd be richer.

Again you are describing the modern day central banking system.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 160): Or CEO of company A would talk to CEO of company B and they'd both agree to pay 3 dollars an hour and enjoy more profits for themselves. Welcome to the real world...not the theory world you live in.

That is an absolutely ridiculous suggestion. Do you really think that every employer in the country would be able to create a cartel on low skilled employees?

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 160): Under true capitalism, there would be no national defense, no police, no firefighters and no public schools. There would be no infrastructure or healthcare either. There would be no stability. The U.S. was closest to "true capitalism" in the 1800's, but paid a price for that in terms of having a highly unstable economy and society.

I never said no government. I have no idea why you think there would be no fire-fighters, infrastructure or healthcare either.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 160): You think there might be a reason for that?

Yes, politicians trying to buy votes.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 160): In fact, the only countries that come close to free market capitalism are mostly 3rd world nations that are poverty stricken and incredibly weak.

Really, I was in Hong Kong and Singapore last week, and they are extremely wealthy.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 162): Ridiculous, have you not noticed the world population count? Have you not noticed the automation in the workplace? Have you not noticed the numbers of unemployed here and elsewhere? Have you not noticed how we have sent the technology and machinery to every corner of the globe where there is cheap labor? Have you not noticed the wealth of the world gravitating away from the West and to the East? I suggest you do if you have children, family, they will pay the price for all this madness.

So you have a problem with paying low prices for the products you buy? How odd.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 165): AAAAAAAANNNNNDDDD.... you are done. I showed you what you did, you denied it. I can deal with that. But, the name calling is where you are finished. Bye.

Sorry what name calling? You have failed to to distinguish between a (known answer) question and a statement. This led me to believe you aren't educated in the English language. I apologise if i have offended you, but i'm aware the US is a very diverse place and I know that having an American flag against your username doesn't necessarily mean English is your first language - it could very well be Spanish for example.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 160): A few people would be richer no doubt, but the overall population....not so much..

On the contrary, since the abandonment of market selected currencies (gold/silver) and the replacement with government backed currencies (Fiat) which have been printed into oblivion the income divide has increased.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 160): And of course, when the economy crashes routinely and our banking system collapses and wipes out most people's wealth, I doubt we'd be richer.

Again you are describing the modern day central banking system.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 160): Or CEO of company A would talk to CEO of company B and they'd both agree to pay 3 dollars an hour and enjoy more profits for themselves. Welcome to the real world...not the theory world you live in.

That is an absolutely ridiculous suggestion. Do you really think that every employer in the country would be able to create a cartel on low skilled employees?

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 160): Under true capitalism, there would be no national defense, no police, no firefighters and no public schools. There would be no infrastructure or healthcare either. There would be no stability. The U.S. was closest to "true capitalism" in the 1800's, but paid a price for that in terms of having a highly unstable economy and society.

I never said no government. I have no idea why you think there would be no fire-fighters, infrastructure or healthcare either.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 160): You think there might be a reason for that?

Yes, politicians trying to buy votes.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 160): In fact, the only countries that come close to free market capitalism are mostly 3rd world nations that are poverty stricken and incredibly weak.

Really, I was in Hong Kong and Singapore last week, and they are extremely wealthy.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 162): Ridiculous, have you not noticed the world population count? Have you not noticed the automation in the workplace? Have you not noticed the numbers of unemployed here and elsewhere? Have you not noticed how we have sent the technology and machinery to every corner of the globe where there is cheap labor? Have you not noticed the wealth of the world gravitating away from the West and to the East? I suggest you do if you have children, family, they will pay the price for all this madness.

So you have a problem with paying low prices for the products you buy? How odd.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 167): Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 162):Ridiculous, have you not noticed the world population count? Have you not noticed the automation in the workplace? Have you not noticed the numbers of unemployed here and elsewhere? Have you not noticed how we have sent the technology and machinery to every corner of the globe where there is cheap labor? Have you not noticed the wealth of the world gravitating away from the West and to the East? I suggest you do if you have children, family, they will pay the price for all this madness. So you have a problem with paying low prices for the products you buy? How odd.

I have a conscience, not a problem. I do not like buying goods made by slave wages. I do not like buying goods that screw workers out of a living here. I do not like goods sold here to people who cannot afford anything else but cheap goods because the wages have fallen because of those jobs disappearing, because more and more workers are working for minimum wage and collecting welfare while they work to survive.

No sir, I suggest you have a problem. You are being obtuse as usual. Arguing for the sake of arguing. Notice the title of this thread, try reading it over and over. Maybe you will learn that the system is broken. The slave masters of labor counsel the workers how to bleed the welfare system so they can pay them dog wages. We have the whiners about welfare costs defending those who cause the welfare system to be bled dry. I call it being obtuse, and I am being very kind.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 167): Really, I was in Hong Kong and Singapore last week, and they are extremely wealthy.

There is a lot of wealth in Hong Kong and a solid middle class. One reason might be because employers are not carrying the burden of employer nanny care.

BTW, did you take a rickshaw ride while you were there? The guy "operating" it won't be on the best wicket in town, nor would a lot of other workers, like kitchen help in the nice hotels, or the guys swabbing the deck on the ferries.

Where the US differs is that our Middle Class is shrinking

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 168): So you have a problem with paying low prices for the products you buy? How odd.

Depends on the product. Remember the Yugo?

There have also been problems with lead in paint on ceramic products from China.

Of course, if we dump our current health insurance system and go to a Medicare for All, with private insurance available we can both increase company profits as well as lowering prices. Increasing payment at the lower wage range would also be possible.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 169): I do not like buying goods made by slave wages.

So you'd rather these people had no income at all? I wish you'd stop making yourself out to be the king of compassion you're not.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 169): I do not like buying goods that screw workers out of a living here.

They haven't screwed workers out of jobs here. Human demand is infinite, demand for jobs is infinite. Things like the minimum wage screw workers out of a living, yet here you are condoning them. More evidence that you are devoid of compassion.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 169): You are being obtuse as usual. Arguing for the sake of arguing.

Not at all, i am presenting the reality. Demonstrating the true dynamics behind the things you want to see. You are being a useful idiot as usual, not even listening to any counter arguments. I'm not sure why you bother to start threads, you obviously have no interest in debate.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 170): Of course, if we dump our current health insurance system and go to a Medicare for All, with private insurance available we can both increase company profits as well as lowering prices. Increasing payment at the lower wage range would also be possible.

There are ways of making healthcare in the US cheaper, and there are ways of making it more expensive. This proposal firmly falls into the latter.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 171): Human demand is infinite, demand for jobs is infinite. Things like the minimum wage screw workers out of a living, yet here you are condoning them. More evidence that you are devoid of compassion.

A lack of a minimum wage would also screw workers out of a living. Demand may be infinite, yet resources are not, and thus someone is always going to get screwed. That's the way the world works. Let's not pretend that your philosophy is going to make everyone happy and prosperous - lots of people lose big under unregulated capitalism, many through no real fault of their own. Does that make you devoid of compassion?

-Mir

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 171): So you'd rather these people had no income at all? I wish you'd stop making yourself out to be the king of compassion you're not.

Gee! I never thought of myself that way. I am glad you noticed that I have some compassion, now the King, that is a stretch. I only strive for compassionate person. I do not like titles.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 171): They haven't screwed workers out of jobs here. Human demand is infinite, demand for jobs is infinite. Things like the minimum wage screw workers out of a living, yet here you are condoning them. More evidence that you are devoid of compassion.

Baloney.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 171): Not at all, i am presenting the reality. Demonstrating the true dynamics behind the things you want to see. You are being a useful idiot as usual, not even listening to any counter arguments. I'm not sure why you bother to start threads, you obviously have no interest in debate.

Reality as you see it. No surprise there. We all have that weakness. True dynamics. I am impressed at your self esteem. True dynamics, impressive! Useful idiot. Hmmn! When I see a answer that I agree with, no problem. When I see an answer that is the same old glop dished out day after day by the drinkers of the Kool Ade of industry, well no, I cannot in reality agree. I have to object. It is in my genetic makeup to defend those who are in need of help. I guess that I do not have any Kingly traits like you said. You are correct on that one point. In the future, try not to defend the indefensible. People are being exploited, screwed over by their own leaders, both business and government. Are you a leader?????

[Edited 2013-09-05 10:19:10]

Quoting Mir (Reply 172): A lack of a minimum wage would also screw workers out of a living. Demand may be infinite, yet resources are not, and thus someone is always going to get screwed. That's the way the world works. Let's not pretend that your philosophy is going to make everyone happy and prosperous - lots of people lose big under unregulated capitalism, many through no real fault of their own. Does that make you devoid of compassion?

A worthy answer to someone who seems an advocate of no compassion as far as I can tell.

A little side note. 17.6 million households in the US had trouble feeding their families last year according to a government. report. This is in the Prov. Journal today. ProJo.com. This the fifth year in a row that these levels have stayed at or near record levels. One has to wonder how this can be? Why is the question? I put this on this thread, because I think there is a direct link to food deprivation for people and minimum wages/wages which drive people to welfare, and inadequate food for families.

[Edited 2013-09-05 09:40:31]

Quoting Mir (Reply 172): A lack of a minimum wage would also screw workers out of a living.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 174): A worthy answer to someone who seems an advocate of no compassion as far as I can tell.

How?

Let's just run a scenario through here a minute. Employee wants a job, he's willing to work at 4 dollars an hour. Employer wants an employee, he's willing to pay up to 4 dollars an hour. The 2 agree and a job is created.

The government comes along and says no you must work for 5 dollars an hour. Employer thinks that is not worth it and no job is created. Employer's business is less productive. Employee is forced into unemployment.

Can somebody explain to me what is compassionate about making that person unemployed?  


[Edited 2013-09-05 11:15:46]

I'm getting more respect for Bill Clinton when he tried to overhaul welfare.I remembered when at the last DNC convention,Clinton spoke about getting people off welfare and into the work force when the room went silent.That was funny.

If Hillary Clinton runs in 2016,and agrees with Bill on the welfare issue,she might secure my vote.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 176): Let's just run a scenario through here a minute. Employee wants a job, he's willing to work at 4 dollars an hour. Employer wants an employee, he's willing to pay up to 4 dollars an hour. The 2 agree and a job is created.

And then someone else comes along who's willing to do the job for 2 dollars an hour. The first person must now either have his pay cut in half or lose his job. He might keep his job, but he'd still find it very hard to make a living on half as much money. Thus, he's been screwed out of a living.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 176): Can somebody explain to me what is compassionate about making that person unemployed?

I'm not saying that a minimum wage doesn't have some unpleasant side effects. Rather, I'm saying that there are always going to be unpleasant side effects in any economic system. You point to those side effects in others' philosophies and claim evidence of a lack of compassion, but ignore that the same could be done to those who your own economic philosophies would hurt. That doesn't seem right.

-Mir

Quoting Mir (Reply 178): And then someone else comes along who's willing to do the job for 2 dollars an hour. The first person must now either have his pay cut in half or lose his job. He might keep his job, but he'd still find it very hard to make a living on half as much money. Thus, he's been screwed out of a living.

Even in this imaginary 3 person equation, that's not being screwed out of a living, that's being out-competed - Pan Am weren't screwed out of being an airline. Never the less, how does the government setting the price of labour to 5 dollars actually help this situation? Instead of one person having a job a 2 bucks an hour, neither person will have a job.

In reality the other guy would never work for 2 dollars an hour, he'd probably work for someone else for about 4 too. Just because he'd be willing to work for 2 doesn't mean he'd have to - if he's providing 4 dollars of value an hour, other employers will compete for his labour and pay him roughly 4 dollars an hour themselves. Imagine if i put 4 dollar coins on ebay and started the bidding at 2 dollars, people would bid up the price until it approached 4 dollars.

There's more though. The higher the price of labour, the more low earners have to pay for the good/services they buy -purchasing power is what matters, not arbitrary numbers.

Finally, low wages jobs aren't even supposed to be the goal, in fact the minimum wage doesn't even provide a good standard of living and very few people even work on it anyway (~4% of Adults in the UK). Low paid jobs are for young workers who are learning their trade and building up skills which means that in the future, they will be able to command higher wages without government mandates.

A minimum wage merely serves to slightly inflate wages for some at cost of jobs to others, all the while making the economy less efficient and increasing prices.

It is a cruel policy.

[Edited 2013-09-05 16:25:04]

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 179): In reality the other guy would never work for 2 dollars an hour

There are millions and millions working for less than 2 bucks an hour. Our former jobs here, now there. Your shining ideal (job competition) does not work, when there are 10k applicants lining up and there are 100 jobs. A Capitalists dream come true, hungry applicants, few jobs. The next step, big surprise, welfare, minimum wage for the other 9900. Come back to earth please, there are millions and millions of uneducated, unskilled workers everywhere, here and there. There is no competition for them, take what I offer, or screw. Now that is compassion of a different sort. Capitalist compassion maybe. Not my type for sure.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 179): Never the less, how does the government setting the price of labour to 5 dollars actually help this situation? Instead of one person having a job a 2 bucks an hour, neither person will have a job.

Yet there are people (plenty of them) who will be making that 5 dollars an hour, and they'll be better off - you conveniently leave them out of the picture.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 179): In reality the other guy would never work for 2 dollars an hour, he'd probably work for someone else for about 4 too.

Not so. If he went to work for someone else, he might get 4 initially, but since a company that pays 2 dollars an hour will be able to charge lower prices for its goods, it'll get the customers, and if other companies want to compete, they'll have to pay their workers less as well. Eventually the other guy will be making close to 2 as well. Remember that these are minimum wage jobs - they're viewed by the companies as a necessary evil that don't provide any value to the customer and are a cost that is to be minimized if at all possible. The company that paid 4 is only willing to do so because the employees demanded it. If employees demanded less, they'd pay less.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 179): Low paid jobs are for young workers who are learning their trade and building up skills which means that in the future, they will be able to command higher wages without government mandates.

Half of the minimum wage earners in the US are not young. While they should be for people just starting out, the reality is that people are starting to get stuck in them

-Mir

Quoting Mir (Reply 181): Yet there are people (plenty of them) who will be making that 5 dollars an hour, and they'll be better off - you conveniently leave them out of the picture.

Please don't accuse me of doing something i blatantly have't done.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 179): A minimum wage merely serves to slightly inflate wages for some at cost of jobs to others,

Quoting Mir (Reply 181): Not so. If he went to work for someone else, he might get 4 initially, but since a company that pays 2 dollars an hour will be able to charge lower prices for its goods, it'll get the customers, and if other companies want to compete, they'll have to pay their workers less as well. Eventually the other guy will be making close to 2 as well.

How would they do that?  

If they tried to charge 2 dollars an hour, their workforce would quit and go and work for the competitors. Then they would not be able to charge lower prices at all.

Quoting Mir (Reply 181): Remember that these are minimum wage jobs - they're viewed by the companies as a necessary evil that don't provide any value to the customer

If they provided no value to the customer, they would never be hired.

Quoting Mir (Reply 181): If employees demanded less, they'd pay less.

Again, no, because employers compete for their labour and push up their wages, regardless of what they would be willing to work for at a bare minimum. I would be willing to work for a lot less than what i'm currently paid, but i don't because employers compete for my skills.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 180): Your shining ideal (job competition) does not work, when there are 10k applicants lining up and there are 100 jobs. A Capitalists dream come true, hungry applicants, few jobs. The next step, big surprise, welfare, minimum wage for the other 9900.

Again, this is your mandation. If 10k people are chasing 100 jobs, that is a sign that there is a too much demand for too little supply and that the market can't find equilibrium because of a price floor (minimum wage). So again, you are the person condoning hunger. No matter what way you try to spin it, banning people from working is not a compassionate position, in fact it's a very cruel one.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 182): Please don't accuse me of doing something i blatantly have't done.

You speak only of the drawbacks of the minimum wage, not of the benefits (which do exist). Not only that, but you use that tactic to make it seem like those who support a minimum wage are cruel. I could point out the aspects of your economic philosophy that could be considered cruel (and there are some) and claim that you like hurting people. But I don't do that, because I know that every system is going to negatively impact some people and that favoring one policy over another is just a matter of different priorities, not a lack of compassion or even outright malice.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 182): If they tried to charge 2 dollars an hour, their workforce would quit and go and work for the competitors.

Who would also be paying less. Because that's how competition works. If I have double the labor costs of someone else, it's going to be very difficult for me to match them on price. Thus, I'm likely going to have to cut my labor costs in order to keep customers coming.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 182): If they provided no value to the customer, they would never be hired.

They provide value in the sense that they are a person doing a job that needs to be done by a person, but they themselves don't bring any value over any other person (I'm speaking with the words of the companies now, I don't agree with that philosophy, but that's the way it's seen by many in the business world).

-Mir

Quoting Mir (Reply 183): You speak only of the drawbacks of the minimum wage, not of the benefits (which do exist).

As i say, please don't accuse me of that because i haven't. The MW bring a small benefit to some at the expense of a major loss to others. If i stole money off of you, i would benefit at your expense. That doesn't justify me pointing a gun at you and taking your wallet, any more than pointing a gun at an employer and saying "you can't hire this worker at that rate" is justifiable.

Quoting Mir (Reply 183): Who would also be paying less. Because that's how competition works.

No it isn't. If this were the case, everyone who had a job would be earning minimum wage. If my wages were halved, i'd go and work for someone else. Somebody else would be happy to pay my old wages because i bring that much value to a company. Just like if i put 4 dollars on ebay and started the bidding at 2 dollars, it would soon bid up to approaching 4 dollars.

Quoting Mir (Reply 183): If I have double the labor costs of someone else, it's going to be very difficult for me to match them on price.

Again, the other person will have no employees, so it would be very easy for you to beat them on price.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 168): Do you really think that every employer in the country would be able to create a cartel on low skilled employees?

It already exists. Companies like Wal-Mart and McDonalds already have a cartel on low-skilled employees.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 179): Low paid jobs are for young workers who are learning their trade and building up skills which means that in the future, they will be able to command higher wages without government mandates.

In theory, that's true, but not in reality. The sad reality in the U.S. is that many people will spend their entire working lives in low wage jobs.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 184): The MW bring a small benefit to some at the expense of a major loss to others.

What major loss? You yourself have said that virtually no one works at the minimum wage.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 182): Again, no, because employers compete for their labour and push up their wages, regardless of what they would be willing to work for at a bare minimum. I would be willing to work for a lot less than what i'm currently paid, but i don't because employers compete for my skills.

Again, you live in theory world and not reality. There's very little reason for employers to compete for "skills" for these types of jobs.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 182): If they tried to charge 2 dollars an hour, their workforce would quit and go and work for the competitors.

If the competitor isn't hiring, you don't have any options. You seem to live in this dream world where people can easily quit their jobs and find new ones. Maybe that's been true in your life, but it's not true for everybody particularly for low-skilled workers.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 184): Again, the other person will have no employees, so it would be very easy for you to beat them on price.

Again, this doesn't jive with reality. Using your logic, why doesn't Wal-Mart just double their salaries and steal all the employees away from Target and put Target out of business?

*sigh*

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 185): It already exists. Companies like Wal-Mart and McDonalds already have a cartel on low-skilled employees.

Source?

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 185): In theory, that's true, but not in reality. The sad reality in the U.S. is that many people will spend their entire working lives in low wage jobs.

It's true in reality too. Whilst some people do spend their whole lives on low wages, most go up the payscale significantly. Not that the minimum wage helps those on low pay anyway, because if you were that incompetent you'd probably be one of the people who didn't have a job.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 185): What major loss? You yourself have said that virtually no one works at the minimum wage.

If you apply a little bit of brainpower, it's clear that the people on the minimum wage are not the people who expereince a loss. It's the people that aren't employed that experience the major loss.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 185): Again, you live in theory world and not reality. There's very little reason for employers to compete for "skills" for these types of jobs.

No, i do live in reality thanks. Obviously if the government has mandated a minimum wage above the equalibrium price for unskilled labour, there is little competition, because in such a scenario the supply of people wanting to work is far higher than the demand for jobs.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 185): If the competitor isn't hiring, you don't have any options. You seem to live in this dream world where people can easily quit their jobs and find new ones. Maybe that's been true in your life, but it's not true for everybody particularly for low-skilled workers.

As above. When the supply of labour is higher than the demand for labour due to a government mandated minimum wage, this will not be possible.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 185): Again, this doesn't jive with reality. Using your logic, why doesn't Wal-Mart just double their salaries and steal all the employees away from Target and put Target out of business?

I'm afraid you logic is way off. Walmart employees don't provide double the value to the company they are currently being paid, so doing that would be a foolish plan. It is only if a company is paying significantly below the level of value they are providing that it makes sense for other companies to steal employees.

I feel as if you really don't understand the economics behind all this.

I suggest you read this about Price Floors

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 182): Again, this is your mandation. If 10k people are chasing 100 jobs, that is a sign that there is a too much demand for too little supply and that the market can't find equilibrium because of a price floor (minimum wage). So again, you are the person condoning hunger. No matter what way you try to spin it, banning people from working is not a compassionate position, in fact it's a very cruel one.

Your theory. Theory. Idea formed by speculation. You speculate, no hard fast rules, as economics are. Designed to fit someone's theory of economics. Many theories.




Reality. State of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear.




Minimum wage. Reality. Helps someone to survive better. Reality.





Theory, we are all better off taking the handouts of business, accepting any job, for any wage.





Reality, people still get screwed even on minimum wage, still a minimal existence for anyone unable to earn more, by lack of education, geographical location, physical, mental shortcomings.




Reality. It took action by the government to institute a minimum wage, because the business people sure as hell would not pay one cent more than they had to.




Reality. They still will not all these years later.




Reality. Business people use welfare to subsidize minimum wages, while screaming about welfare costs.




Reality. Exploitation is alive and well here and everywhere. We need government intervention to protect the exploited people.




Reality. The US has one of the most exploitive systems in the developed world.

http://wallstreetpit.com/9524-most-i...ic-theories-over-the-past-century/



Just a list of economic theories, take your pick. Not an exact science for sure according to the Author.

[Edited 2013-09-06 18:00:16]

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 187): Your theory. Theory. Idea formed by speculation. You speculate, no hard fast rules, as economics are. Designed to fit someone's theory of economics. Many theories.

It's not speculation at all. It's based upon the completely and utterly proven law that the more expensive things are the less people will buy them. In this case labour.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 187): Minimum wage. Reality. Helps someone to survive better. Reality.

Yeah if you're on the minimum wage you get paid maybe a dollar an hour more. If you can't earn that much, you earn nothing, and that does not help people survive. That is reality.

The minimum wage actually does in the microcosm of the unskilled labour market what you seem to detest, make the better off better off and the worse off worse off.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 187): Minimum wage. Reality. Helps someone to survive better. Reality. Theory, we are all better off taking the handouts of business, accepting any job, for any wage.

Yes.And welfare,too.The government(s) needs to combine these by offering incentives to work..Example: California minimum wage is $8.00,city of SFO is $10,and then the government offers another $5.00per hour when you find a job as a bonus for let's say,60months.This offer would be good for people 18-55yrs old.Then lower the overall welfare to $1-2hr below minimum wage to further encourage getting a job.The government (s) should set up work details or schooling or both for those still unable to find work and pay them $1-2 above minimum wage.

But right now,welfare/social programs in it's present form is a cancer growing threatening to make the US 3rd world.

My  

[Edited 2013-09-07 12:06:33]

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 189): It's not speculation at all. It's based upon the completely and utterly proven law that the more expensive things are the less people will buy them. In this case labour.

A perfect example. This does not apply to the rich. They always buy. One of the ways to get rich, has always been to exploit people, in one form or another. The King did it, and so on and so on. Not many royal titles around these days. We now have the wealthy, and corporations replacing the Kings. Pay as little as one can to fill your coffers. Now that economic theory is well proven. Yes Sir!

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 184): The MW bring a small benefit to some at the expense of a major loss to others.

It brings a small benefit to a lot of people, actually. And it doesn't hurt that many - there's no shortage of minimum wage jobs in the US, so it's not keeping people out of work.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 184): If this were the case, everyone who had a job would be earning minimum wage. If my wages were halved, i'd go and work for someone else. Somebody else would be happy to pay my old wages because i bring that much value to a company.

Unless they didn't have any vacancies, of course.

But moving beyond that, you clearly don't work in a low-skill, minimum wage job. The priorities are different there, and it's a mistake to try and draw comparisons between the two.

-Mir

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 191): Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 189): It's not speculation at all. It's based upon the completely and utterly proven law that the more expensive things are the less people will buy them. In this case labour. A perfect example. This does not apply to the rich.

Wow. I am reminded of what former USSC Justice Sandra O'Connor said the other day.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/0...ndra-day-oconnor.html#.UivVutJwpRo

Quote: "The more I read and the more I listen, the more apparent it is that our society suffers from an alarming degree of public ignorance," O'Connor said. That ignorance starts in the earliest years of a child's schooling, she said, but often continues all the way through college and graduate school.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 188): Just a list of economic theories, take your pick. Not an exact science for sure according to the Author.

Price Floor/Ceiling theory is Microeconomics, an absolutely proven economic MECHANISM, not just a theory, proven without doubt countless times through empirical observation. Much, much different than Macroeconomic theory which, as you say, can be a lot fuzzier.

[quote=PSA53,reply=190]But right now,welfare/social programs in it's present form is a cancer growing threatening to make the US 3rd world.


I cannot disagree, it is not good for this country. I was raised along with many, many millions with the work ethic, earn your money. The system is now broken, politics, government, education, welfare, corporations, wages. The opportunity we had is gone for many. Who do we blame? The workers? The poor, the uneducated, the illegals let in to depress wages even more? I blame the exploiters for where we are now. I blame the corporations for shipping opportunity over there, away from here. I blame our congress for facilitating it. I blame our courts for allowing further corruption of our elections with unlimited money from the fat cats, no matter who they are. I most certainly do not blame the ordinary people who were fed and swallowed a line of bull about how good this was going to be for our country. Look around, see the shinning inner cities, the shinning infrastructure, the love for our congress, see how our education system is working, see how fair our tax structure is, see how affordable our medical system is for the wage stagnant workers. What a country now. What I have seen over the last 30 years, is a steady downward spiral, leading us towards third world status. Who get blamed, certainly not our leaders? The people do of course. They caused it, just ask the leaders, who did not lead, but took every cent they could.

[Edited 2013-09-07 18:51:24]

[Edited 2013-09-07 19:31:42]

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 193): Price Floor/Ceiling theory is Microeconomics, an absolutely proven economic MECHANISM, not just a theory, proven without doubt countless times through empirical observation. Much, much different than Macroeconomic theory which, as you say, can be a lot fuzzier.

I also agree with Sandra Day O' Conner.


I do not portray myself as an economic expert. I most certainly cannot argue against your points. I agree with your point on theory, much fuzzier, speculation always is. I do know what my years of life has taught me. I do know when one is being manipulated. I do know when the system is rigged, I do know when something is corrupt. I do know that we now have all of these things once again in our country, more so now than in recent past times.

We are being played, we are being manipulated, we are being screwed over. Wall Street is a glaring example, banking another. Untold billions lost, some of it mine. Who went to jail? What changed really? I do not consider myself among those who the Judge spoke of. I do consider myself a person who learned the economics of life. The reality of it, sometimes is nothing taught in a book. As I said earlier, you cannot eat a theory. That is a reality.

Quoting Mir (Reply 192): But moving beyond that, you clearly don't work in a low-skill, minimum wage job. The priorities are different there, and it's a mistake to try and draw comparisons between the two.

I agree, I took my grandchildren to McDonalds today. I did not see a happy bunch. I did not see a bunch of kids either, I saw middle aged, and kids working there. All I can think is drudge work, so someone earning a good living should not as you say try to draw a comparison. There is none, along with any motivation. I do not think a free soda and maybe a free hamburger gives one much to smile about.