LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksMany conservatives claim that raising the minimum wage automatically leads to inflation. Is this true? It seems to me that if they are correct, then wouldn't lowering wages cause deflation and couldn't that be just as dangerous?
18Likes
July 5th, 2013, 01:24 PM
Many conservatives claim that raising the minimum wage automatically leads to inflation. Is this true? It seems to me that if they are correct, then wouldn't lowering wages cause deflation and couldn't that be just as dangerous?
It probably wouldn't much if any effect on inflation--only a few percent of the workforce actually make minimum wage, and wages at the end of the retail stream, as it typical of most US products now days, is a tiny % of cost.
I'd be all for it, if combined with a bit less funding for social welfare programs--some of this will happen anyhow with higher wages. Wages are so low right now in some places that we are in essence subsidizing large companies (Walmart), to maintain a substance income for the poor through various Federal and State welfare programs.
Get rid of a minimum wage.
Does the Minimum Wage Hurt Workers? - YouTube
Though I don't think it would alter inflation that much, as the payments to people who do make more won't increase the cost of most goods (though it will in agricultural products and other labor-intensive goods and services). It would cost jobs however, which would increase unemployment.
You know that if minimum wage were gone, people would probably make $4 an hour, right? Sam Walton tried to pay workers .50 cents an hour when $1 was the minimum wage...
Then no one would work for them, and they would have to pay more or they would only get the most inept workers ever.Originally Posted by mikepotter84
Or people would have no choice but to work for $1 hr because there were no other jobs offering more and we would be slaves to corporations who tell us our time is not worth enough money to purchase food.Then no one would work for them, and they would have to pay more or they would only get the most inept workers ever.
Last edited by Flick Montana; July 6th, 2013 at 08:41 AM.
If you take everything into consideration economically speaking then the actual wage per hour should be over 22.00 per hour or more. But since the minimum wage law only is set at about 8.00 that means everyone is actually working for less than they should be getting according to many economic professionals. So as the prices increase wages have not kept pace so this is something that businesses enjoy for they do not have to pay what they should but only what they want. Businesses run the Congress and make Congress do what they want so even if wages are raised it won't be much but enough to "appease" the media who will say that was all that was needed by the working class.
So I think the minimum wage should be raised to the 22.00 per hour but that will never happen.
Please read and watch.....
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...Zk9fl-O2MRhOSg
The main problem with that article is that it measures productivity, something which has increased drastically with the use of computers and automation. Yes, productivity has increased drastically since the 1960s, but so has equipment cost. Now you don't work harder or longer hours (in fact, you probably work less), you do more because you have machines which assist you. Your labor would only be increased in worth to $22 if you could do as much as others without all of the machinery invented in the last 50 years to make you more productive.
In answer to her question, the extra $14.75 (or more) went to the equipment that you use in order to have that increased productivity.
More mechanical equipment, less people needed to do the tasks so thereby the businesses win both ways.
It's all well and good that the guy wears glasses, but he's pretending that there are all these employers out there hiring more workers than they need.
I hope they're not. It's a good thing for businesses to hire the fewest employees possible to operate. That means they're being efficient. It means they're automating everything they can automate.
Higher per-capita wage means those workers who don't get laid off have disposable income (income left over after obligatory purchases like rent and food). Disposable income creates new business opportunities. Ten workers/consumers who do have lots of disposable income will contribute more to new business/job formation than 50 workers/consumers who don't have disposable income.
The idea of a minimum wage is a problem for many companies, on the one hand ideally they don't want to be having to increase their wage costs yet at the same time they want all their customers to have plenty of disposable income. If wages stay low then customers have less money so companies can't charge as much for their products, now given that global commodity prices have been on a general trend of just continuing up it means regardless of wage costs companies ultimately have to increase their prices over time. Simply put companies are better off with higher wage costs if it means their customers have more money to spend.
What's fair?
Raise minimum wage to 1% of the highest paid ceo in the country---then let it float at that ratio.
http://www.aflcio.org/Corporate-Watc...hest-Paid-CEOs
Even 0.1% of Eric Schmidt's salary would be plenty to live on. $100,980.26 per year.
However, he's CEO of Google. I think maybe he might actually deserve to make what he makes.
if everyone in the country made a minimum of $1,000,000 or even $100,000/anum can you imagine how worthless the currency would become?
I'm not sure anyone deserves to make that much beyond sustenance while others in the same country die of malnutrition and exposure to the elements...
He created a new service that everyone wanted. Why SHOULDN'T he be allowed to keep what he makes?I'm not sure anyone deserves to make that much beyond sustenance while others in the same country die of malnutrition and exposure to the elements...
Moral obligations. Unless of course, he finds some way to spend several billions of dollars on personal purchases, in which case he may suffer from an acute case of vanity.He created a new service that everyone wanted. Why SHOULDN'T he be allowed to keep what he makes?I'm not sure anyone deserves to make that much beyond sustenance while others in the same country die of malnutrition and exposure to the elements...
To what degree do you warrant excess?I'm not sure anyone deserves to make that much beyond sustenance while others in the same country die of malnutrition and exposure to the elements...
Moral obligations to, in stead of investing the money into the economy to improve it, give money to people who did nothing for it and to whom he has never hurt and has no real obligation? How does that help? Yes, it helps a few people for a little while, but it hurts them in the long run.Moral obligations. Unless of course, he finds some way to spend several billions of dollars on personal purchases, in which case he may suffer from an acute case of vanity.He created a new service that everyone wanted. Why SHOULDN'T he be allowed to keep what he makes?I'm not sure anyone deserves to make that much beyond sustenance while others in the same country die of malnutrition and exposure to the elements...
"Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime." Wouldn't the money be better used to train new employees, or create jobs?
How about "Teach a man to fish so that he'll feel he has hope, then buy yourself a longer rod and monopolize the seafood market and laugh in his face"?"Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime."
Let me ask you this: Who on Earth needs more than 2 homes, 3 cars and a yacht? Also, would you sit in front of a homeless man and eat filet mignon while he starves if you could purchase a hamburger and feed him as well as yourself? Just because you can't see the damage done by the rampant greed in this country doesn't mean that you should ignore it. Wal-Mart CEO Michael Duke makes 16, 000 an hour, while cashiers are paid less than 9...is that fair?To what degree do you warrant excess?I'm not sure anyone deserves to make that much beyond sustenance while others in the same country die of malnutrition and exposure to the elements...
No, I would do something like that. But there's a big difference between voluntary charity and police enforced taxation so that some of the money can go to those in need. One is a person doing something for another. The other is a bloated organization impersonating Robin Hood in order to trick people into liking them.Let me ask you this: Who on Earth needs more than 2 homes, 3 cars and a yacht? Also, would you sit in front of a homeless man and eat filet mignon while he starves if you could purchase a hamburger and feed him as well as yourself? Just because you can't see the damage done by the rampant greed in this country doesn't mean that you should ignore it. Wal-Mart CEO Michael Duke makes 16, 000 an hour, while cashiers are paid less than 9...is that fair?To what degree do you warrant excess?I'm not sure anyone deserves to make that much beyond sustenance while others in the same country die of malnutrition and exposure to the elements...
The Walmart CEO is responsible for making decisions that could cost everyone in the company their jobs and retirement. The cashier is responsible for checking out customers and ringing up items. There's a huge difference in the amount of responsibility there. So yes, it's fair.
And BTW, I was a Walmart Cashier, so I know exactly what they have to do and how easy it is comparatively.
How about "you're sounding psychotic." You seem to have the impression that the higherups in businesses are classic movie villains, sitting around rubbing their hands, cackling, trying to decide how to screw people over.
It sure is interesting how people buy into political propaganda. Next you'll be telling me that the TEA party are a bunch of racist nutjobs. Or that Libertarians are a bunch of self-absorbed anarchists.
That's bullshit and you know it. Managers and CEO's can delegate responsibility...something a cashier cannot do. Also, without employers, a CEO is NOTHING.There's a huge difference in the amount of responsibility there. So yes, it's fair.
That's the wisest thing you've written yet in this thread.Next you'll be telling me that the TEA party are a bunch of racist nutjobs. Or that Libertarians are a bunch of self-absorbed anarchists.
I never claimed everyone was that way. But yes, they actually DO often conspire to find ways to avoid government regulation, avoid pay raises, avoid paying taxes, avoid paying for health insurance, etc for workers...I'm from WV, where Don Blankenship resides...he has made life a living hell for coal miners:You seem to have the impression that the higherups in businesses are classic movie villains, sitting around rubbing their hands, cackling, trying to decide how to screw people over.
Is Massey Boss Mining Coal Again? - ABC News
I can even speak from personal experience. A certain grocery store (not going to mention the name because I may be forced to work there again in the near future) refuses to hire more than a small handful of full-time cashiers. They would provide my coworkers and I with perhaps 2-3 five hour shifts per week in order to save money and would often ask us to leave early. They would place us on call so that if they weren't busy on a certain day, we couldn't come in. I made less than $50 some weeks.
I don't think anyone needs 2 homes, 3 cars and a yacht, but if they have the means, it isn't my place to tell them it's wrong. I don't need a 1 bed/1 bath apartment with a kitchen and living room, but I'm not wrong because I don't live in a Studio Apartment when I know full well I could. The world doesn't owe me, and I most certainly do not owe it. If the world did owe me, it would owe everyone else too. That means your lifestyle would probably be worse than it is right now.Let me ask you this: Who on Earth needs more than 2 homes, 3 cars and a yacht? Also, would you sit in front of a homeless man and eat filet mignon while he starves if you could purchase a hamburger and feed him as well as yourself? Just because you can't see the damage done by the rampant greed in this country doesn't mean that you should ignore it. Wal-Mart CEO Michael Duke makes 16, 000 an hour, while cashiers are paid less than 9...is that fair?To what degree do you warrant excess?I'm not sure anyone deserves to make that much beyond sustenance while others in the same country die of malnutrition and exposure to the elements...
The world didn't say, "Hey, Larry, heres a billion little buddy," he went out and took it for himself. If he didn't, someone else would have. His pay doesn't reflect the amount of work he does, and maybe he doesn't earn it - but that's irrelevant. "Fair" is irrelevant. You didn't earn being an American - or whatever Imperialistic Western society you hail from. You're a Westie, just like me - and it's much better than being Congolese. It's hypocritical to say, "this dude is oppressing me because he makes boat loads of money," only to turn around and, as a member of West, profit off the robbery of the truly disenfranchised. Simply living where you do means you're a thief - and people just love denying this, because that just doesn't work with how they identify themselves. You will learn I bring this up all the damn time, and not because of some misguided sense of self-righteousness - I bring it up when people deny that they too live at the expense of others, and that they too are a cog in the great colonial machine. You think you live vicariously because the rich live at your expense, that's hilariously naive.
Lead by example, if you want others to live within their needs then go live in a cave, eat local food only, and wear the rotting skins of the animals you hunt with your bare hands. Because you don't need anything else in order to survive. That's right, imagine how far we would've gotten if everyone in the world was just contented with what they need and never aspired for something greater. As my signature says, "Cultivated leisure is the aim of man," and it motivates us more than "fair" ever will.
I agree that people need to aspire to great things and having money is important. I am just saying that the current wealth distribution indicates a HUGE inequality gap. This needs to change.
This is worth a watch: bill maher on The Wealth Gap in America and the World 12-03-2011 - YouTube
Furthermore:
http://nelp.3cdn.net/24befb45b36b626a7a_v2m6iirxb.pdf
"As most ofthe largest low‐wage employers in the U.S. have successfully recovered from the recession,they
have shared their profits generously with their top executives and shareholders, while wages for frontline
workers in these industries have remained stagnant:
In the most recent fiscal year,the top‐paid executive at each ofthese 50 companies was awarded an
average $9.4 million in compensation – even as many oftheir employees are paid at or near the
minimum wage (just over $15,000 per year).
The top 50 low‐wage employers have distributed $174.8 billion in dividend payments and share
buy backs to their stock holders overthe pastfive fiscal years.
These numbers make clear that most ofthe low‐wage employers that would be disproportionately affected by
an increase in the minimum wage are in a strong financial position and can afford the cost of a higher
minimum wage. The fact that post‐recession profit growth for these businesses has not resulted in higher
wages for the lowest‐paid workers in their industries reveals the critical importance of a strong minimum wage
in setting fair pay standards."
To whom does this change benefit?
Are you serious? The middle class/poor...who else?
Of the world? Or America?
When my son moved to Seattle, and went to work, for minimum wage, he was grateful. Basically there were NO JOBS...and if you could even get one it was a triumph. I worked for minimum wage at my first job (also on the road, but had a boss who got music) at Kentucky Fried Chicken. Hell, it was a JOB!!! It helped me eat! I was 16....so...worked for me. I donot think that a 50 year old is going to make 25 bucks an hour working at McD's..think about it. And no one is going to pay 9 dollars for a mcd hamburger.
The median income per person over 15 working as of 2005 was $28,567.00. However I think that includes part time, single job workers.
Household income in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The average income is $42,693.00 (Since average is calculated differently from median.)
Per Capita Personal Income U.S. and All States
As of 2010, 13,970,000 Americans already made $100,000.00 per year or more (that's from a graph in the first link). That's shown as being 6.6% of the population (because it's going off of "243,955,000 individuals aged 15 or higher who received income in 2010 as recorded by the United States Census Bureau")
There would definitely be some inflation if we raised everyone's wage up to 100,000/year.
Would USD become worthless? No. Probably not.
Would it be a good idea to do it? Also no. Probably not. A more modest increase might be a good idea, however.
Funny thing that. The global GDP per capita is approximately 12 000. So minimum wage is "fair" without dependents.
World economy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That "huge inequality gap" isn't so big when you're talking about what's "fair". Statistically speaking, the number of Americans at or below, but mostly below, the global "fair" earnings per person is about 23%, and that includes dependents. Statistically, 77% of Americans are living above what is actually "fair" by global standards.
You can even do the math yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usa (for population)
That's why I don't like Maher. His rhetoric is oh so compelling - when you're only factoring in the United States. When you start looking at it globally ("fairly") it's another story. In the greater scheme, Maher's spiel is bullshit. He either knows this -or- he truly thinks there's a difference between what is "fair" for Americans and what is "fair" for everyone else (Colonialism). The best part is that Maher talks trash about "1 Percenters," yet he himself is a "1 Percenter" when you factor in the rest of the world - instead of, you know, a single corner of it.
Last edited by stander-j; July 6th, 2013 at 05:24 AM.
To much greed will destroy any society. What is to much, well each of us must determine that but since the wealthy only want everything for themselves it is much harder for others to attain anything near what they think would be "reasonable". So is it right for a few to hold all of the wealth so that only they can have everything they want or would it be much better for all of society to at least have enough to enjoy life and have enough to live within reason? If only a few hold all of the wealth then that society that they live in suffers and will collapse eventually.
The question is what is best for the overall economy. Not just what % of the pie you get, but also how big is that pie. Both extremes of distribution end up with small pies.
If the wealth is attempted to distribute too evenly then idiots waste it on gambling or chrome rims for their pickup truck. Or they invest in their idiot son's new business plan to sell dog collars for $200.00 each to wealthy pet owners. (Because there are just so many wealthy pet owners out there who want to buy an overpriced dog collar from some guys idiot son.)
If it's distributed too unevenly, and concentrates too much on a small wealthy elite, then there's no demand for goods and services. They save too much of their income rather than spend it and it stops circulating through the businesses. So you can't hardly start any new businesses. There are investors standing by to invest, but no good places for the investment to go.
One extreme leads to too little smart investment. The other leads to too much saving and not enough spending.
Are you factoring in the cost of living? Most people in Uganda make less than American minimum wage, but most of them also don't have to pay $600 in rent for a one bedroom apartment either.Funny thing that. The global GDP per capita is approximately 12 000. So minimum wage is "fair" without dependents.
World economy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That "huge inequality gap" isn't so big when you're talking about what's "fair". Statistically speaking, the number of Americans at or below, but mostly below, the global "fair" earnings per person is about 23%, and that includes dependents. Statistically, 77% of Americans are living above what is actually "fair" by global standards.
You're right, but surely said cost of living also represents standard of living and overall quality of life does it not? You'd think that 600 dollar apartment is a big step up from a corrugated iron shack.Are you factoring in the cost of living? Most people in Uganda make less than American minimum wage, but most of them also don't have to pay $600 in rent for a one bedroom apartment either.
I hope you'll forgive the double post. I just want to elaborate on the problem of excess saving that is accompanying the concentration of wealth in the USA (and apparently world wide as well.)
Economy of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If the treasury is able to sell T-bills at negative real interest (interest less than the rate of inflation) that should tell you there are lots of wealthy people out there overburdened by money they want to save, who have nowhere to invest it.
That's what concentration of wealth causes.
Extremely wealthy people can't put their money away as fast as they're getting it, nor are they motivated to spend it as fast as they get it, so it's going out of circulation.
Wow, I don't know if you just buy into the propoganda so much that you can't think for yourself, or if you are actually a troll.
The reasons why they do it that are listed there explain the situation just fine. NOT having their money in treasury bills is too risky. With all the changing laws, tax hikes, out of control regulations and the like, there is no reason to invest in business in the US, as it's too risky. With these you can at least cut your loses. If there WAS a good opportunity out there, wouldn't they be investing in it? Aren't they, in your opinion, so greedy that they want to make all the money they can?I hope you'll forgive the double post. I just want to elaborate on the problem of excess saving that is accompanying the concentration of wealth in the USA (and apparently world wide as well.)
Economy of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If the treasury is able to sell T-bills at negative real interest (interest less than the rate of inflation) that should tell you there are lots of wealthy people out there overburdened by money they want to save, who have nowhere to invest it.
That's what concentration of wealth causes.
Extremely wealthy people can't put their money away as fast as they're getting it, nor are they motivated to spend it as fast as they get it, so it's going out of circulation.
The minimum wage must be set so that a person working full time is able to support themselves and at least one dependent. To have it any less is morally wrong.
I'm no economist but I do understand that for a capitalist economy to exist there MUST be some level of unemployment, otherwise it can't function. (The other big flaw of capitalism is that it assumes unlimited resources but that's a different thread.)
The main problems with that are:
1) Some places are cheaper to live than others. A state level minimum wage makes far more since in that respect, as a living wage here in north GA is far less than one in Washington DC or NYC or California.
2) There are many potential jobs out there that it isn't worth paying people a living wage to do. Earning some money is better than earning no money. (of course, in the US, you can just go sign up and the government will take money from others to give to you if you make too little, but that's a different topic.)
3) It isn't the government's job to regulate morality. It IS, however, their job to prevent people from harming each other. Minimum wage hurts people (prevents the creation of jobs, costs jobs). Therefore, the government's job is to not have a minimum wage, and most certainly not have an extreme minimum wage.
Yes, I understand that the government has overstepped its bounds by regulating morality and creating MANY laws that hurt people. I'm sure someone will post an example in order to rebut me, too.
So create a state based minimum wage.
If there is a valid job then the person doing it should be paid a valid wage. A sewer cleaner, bin man/woman, street sweeper is just as valid job as a doctor, lawyer, teacher etc. It's a job, someone has to do it, why should that person doing a valid job be required to live in poverty, especially in an affluent country?
It's not about regulating morality, it's about introducing legislation to support the people of the country, which is their job.
I guess I'm fortunate enough to live in a country with a very strong minimum wage structure and workers' rights. We are also in our 22nd year of economic growth.
Assuming you're from one, what makes your country so wealthy? Why does that not factor into whether or not it's "morally wrong" to have a minimum wage that does not, at the very least, support one worker and a dependent?
I guess all countries should have a minimum wage.
What use is a minimum wage when Western/Eastern corporations, that already control the market, simply decide to take their money elsewhere? Makes it difficult to repair that crippled and deteriorating infrastructure Europe made you build for them, and then left you with after direct control stopped being profitable. The West preys off of conflicts that they are partially responsible for by choosing sides, sponsoring wars, and helping set up Autocracies/Oligarchies whose loyalties are bought or borrowed.I guess all countries should have a minimum wage.
The West/East plays with a deck stacked in its favour, there's no such thing as "make a fair minimum wage law" in most under-developed countries because their leaders are already pocketed, their leaders have led their countries into isolation, or their leaders are not in control of their own borders and cannot enforce it. If Sony wants to buy coltan for cheap from warlord-slavers, who will then use that money to buy weapons, then there is nothing a poor country can do about it.
We profit from that, and so I don't see how anyone can justify higher minimum wage in America as being a moral issue. It's possible for a worker and a dependent to comfortably live off of 12 000 year in America - it just wouldn't be the lifestyle they thought they were entitled to.
Last edited by stander-j; July 6th, 2013 at 11:08 AM.
What use is a minimum wage when Western/Eastern corporations, that already control the market, simply decide to take their money elsewhere? Makes it difficult to repair that crippled and deteriorating infrastructure Europe made you build for them, and then left you with after direct control stopped being profitable. The West preys off of conflicts that they are partially responsible for by choosing sides, sponsoring wars, and helping set up Autocracies/Oligarchies whose loyalties are bought or borrowed.I guess all countries should have a minimum wage.
The West/East plays with a deck stacked in its favour, there's no such thing as "make a fair minimum wage law" in most under-developed countries because their leaders are already pocketed, their leaders have led their countries into isolation, or their leaders are not in control of their own borders and cannot enforce it. If Sony wants to buy coltan for cheap from warlord-slavers, who will then use that money to buy weapons, then there is nothing a poor country can do about it.
We profit from that, and so I don't see how anyone can justify higher minimum wage in America as being a moral issue. It's possible for a worker and a dependent to comfortably live off of 12 000 year in America - it just wouldn't be the lifestyle they thought they were entitled to.
For that matter, why do we insist on manipulating other countries to our will when we can't even fix our own problems?
Stander, we are the wealthiest country in the world. We can afford to help the poor. You can't look at the rest of the world and claim "well, they are just as shitty to their workers, so the US is doing ok", which is basically what you just did...so what if the entire world does something wrong....does that make it right or fair?
I don't know - but my guess? An emphasis on competition amongst the powers. Sure, we're mostly friendly now, but that doesn't mean we don't vie for the top position. East vs. West, America vs. Britain, Britain vs. France, and so on and so forth. The more nations a country has in its sphere, the greater its influence and position.For that matter, why do we insist on manipulating other countries to our will when we can't even fix our own problems?What use is a minimum wage when Western/Eastern corporations, that already control the market, simply decide to take their money elsewhere? Makes it difficult to repair that crippled and deteriorating infrastructure Europe made you build for them, and then left you with after direct control stopped being profitable. The West preys off of conflicts that they are partially responsible for by choosing sides, sponsoring wars, and helping set up Autocracies/Oligarchies whose loyalties are bought or borrowed.The West/East plays with a deck stacked in its favour, there's no such thing as "make a fair minimum wage law" in most under-developed countries because their leaders are already pocketed, their leaders have led their countries into isolation, or their leaders are not in control of their own borders and cannot enforce it. If Sony wants to buy coltan for cheap from warlord-slavers, who will then use that money to buy weapons, then there is nothing a poor country can do about it.We profit from that, and so I don't see how anyone can justify higher minimum wage in America as being a moral issue. It's possible for a worker and a dependent to comfortably live off of 12 000 year in America - it just wouldn't be the lifestyle they thought they were entitled to.I guess all countries should have a minimum wage.
Wow, I don't know if you just buy into the propoganda so much that you can't think for yourself, or if you are actually a troll.
I'M A TROLL?
You are off your meds.
As I said before, fair is irrelevant. If it was, people wouldn't be making 50 000 a year in America, while others only make 200 a year in Chad. It's not as if that disparity is in no way connected. I'm saying you have no right complaining about what is and is not fair because most Americans earn more than their "fair share". Now, if you were to say, "We should raise the minimum wage in America and create an earning cap because some aren't getting a big enough cut of the colonial pie," well then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
You are not making any sense...this has nothing to do with Colonialism...of course there are instances of American companies exploiting the poor of foreign countries but that should change as well...
You're not getting it. The problem isn't that they're putting their money into T-Bills. You're right that of course that is exactly what they should do.
The problem is there is too much money flooding the reliable financial vehicles like T-Bills. The laws of supply and demand are what has driven the price of a T-bill to such a low. Too large a supply of investment money, and too few T-bills being issued (not saying its a bad thing to issue too few T-bills.)
Why is there so much money flooding them? Because there are too many wealthy people and/or (more likely) the few wealthy people who exist have too much money.
If they were less wealthy - by which I mean if more of their wealth were in the hands of poorer people - that money would circulate through the economy instead of getting pent up in T-Bills or other places like that.
Poor people spend their paychecks on goods and services, instead of trying to put it into T-bills. Buying goods and services seems wasteful but it's actually less wasteful than the alternative of having unemployed people who could have been making those goods and services instead of being unemployed. Having people unemployed means that, while the money that would have gone into their paycheck may still be there, the wealth isn't still there. Wealthy people are accumulating money, but a lot of the real wealth associated with that money is just vanishing. It's not just flowing from poor to rich. A great deal of it is flowing from poor to non-existent.
How is this not obvious to everyone? I'll try classic deductive reasoning here:
1) - When the price of a thing is low ...... that usually indicates there is an oversupply.
2) - The price of lent money is low right now.
Therefore
3) - Lent money must be in a state of oversupply.
What could cause lent money to be in oversupply?
Answer: Too many people with money greatly in excess of their day to day needs and wants.
Not only is it morally wrong....but it's expensive to all Americans, because we make up the difference in social services to make sure their kids don't go hungry, have a roof over their head, a pair of shoes and some form of health care. Minimum wage is well below the poverty line in nearly every state--the difference is made for with in tax driven support money to families. Raising minimum wage, applying it to all jobs (many are exempt) is the simplest way to lessen government social program expenses and with fiscal discipline (I know...I know) lessen our tax burdens.
It has everything to do with colonialism. Your current minimum wage is MORE than what each individual is entitled to for a "fair" division of the global GDP. You want to raise that wage. You say the top earners of America make more than they should be entitled to. You say it is wrong for top earners to live like they do while other Americans struggle to uphold a moderate lifestyle. 77% of Americans earn more than their "fair share" of the global GDP, while the majority of the 23% that do not still earn more than the bottom 50% of the world.
You only want to redistribute what the top earners of America make, cap their earnings, and let the effects remain in America - even though it is more than what America is entitled to if it were to be "fair", which was your initial remark about the distribution of wealth in America. And this is in spite of the fact that a lot of America's GDP has been unfairly gained at the expense of disenfranchised under-developed nations that do not see any meaningful gains from said transactions. You're trying to diminish how your country got the GDP it has, the role America has had on why other nations treat their workers poorly, and misdirect the relevancy to what is objectively "Fair" and "Moral".
So what I'm saying is this: What you want is convenient for most Americans, but that doesn't make it morally right, or "fair".
If the ability to think for yourself warrants medication, I'm glad I'm "off my meds". Eventually, perhaps, you may be able to look into things and see what is true, what is a lie, and what may be. Until then you are just a slave, parroting the words of your master.
Wow, I don't know if you just buy into the propoganda so much that you can't think for yourself, or if you are actually a troll.
I'M A TROLL?
You are off your meds.
The choice to raise the minimum should really be straight forward, it's about shifting spending power back to low paid workers.
But the argument in favour of such isn't just about putting more money into their pockets, it about creating jobs and boosting
consumerism. Statistically low paid workers spend a larger percentage of their incomes than higher income employees, so putting
more money in their pockets creates a boost in consumption which enables businesses to sell more products, hire more staff and
pay better wages. Thus any increase in the minimum wage works better as an economic stimulus than a universal tax cut, futher
more raising the minimum wage doesn't affect government revenues and necessitate funding cuts and job losses for government
programs as the raise is payed for directly by the private sector.
According OECD figures the US has had one lowest minimun wages, by terms relative to the median wage, in the developed world,
equalling just 38% of the median wage in 2011.
Whilst many may argue over the negative effects of running such a low figure, especially during the recent recession, but what
it potentially mean is that there is indeed scope to raise it now and help to really kick start demand for the recovery.
Given that President Obama's proposal for a national minimum wage of $9 an hour by 2015 would only actually equates to the real
terms level of that of 1979, there may even be a logical case made for raising the minimum wage to an even higher level.
But also Obama is not alone in believing the current national minimum is far to low as already 20 states have set their own
minimum wages at a higher level than that of the current national standard.
Counter arguments against raising the minimum wage usually fall along the lines of suggesting it could end up creating more
unemployment in the low paid sector. However these arguments don't hold up well under scrutiny, especially when even countries
like China have seen significant increases in the wages of it's lowest paid workers, and research suggesting that the boost in
consumerism generated by a national minimum wage set at $9.80 would actually be responsible for creating an extra 100,000 jobs
rather than costing jobs as oppentents have tradionally tried to suggest.
Money put into T bills doesn't disappear, it goes to the government, who then use to either prop up pet projects that they believe will help people, or to prop up the failing economy and/or national debt. Either way, the money DOES go to benefit the poor, though it is done so inefficiently that the effect isn't anything close to what it would be if the money was kept in the private market.
You're not getting it. The problem isn't that they're putting their money into T-Bills. You're right that of course that is exactly what they should do.
The problem is there is too much money flooding the reliable financial vehicles like T-Bills. The laws of supply and demand are what has driven the price of a T-bill to such a low. Too large a supply of investment money, and too few T-bills being issued (not saying its a bad thing to issue too few T-bills.)
Why is there so much money flooding them? Because there are too many wealthy people and/or (more likely) the few wealthy people who exist have too much money.
If they were less wealthy - by which I mean if more of their wealth were in the hands of poorer people - that money would circulate through the economy instead of getting pent up in T-Bills or other places like that.
Poor people spend their paychecks on goods and services, instead of trying to put it into T-bills. Buying goods and services seems wasteful but it's actually less wasteful than the alternative of having unemployed people who could have been making those goods and services instead of being unemployed. Having people unemployed means that, while the money that would have gone into their paycheck may still be there, the wealth isn't still there. Wealthy people are accumulating money, but a lot of the real wealth associated with that money is just vanishing. It's not just flowing from poor to rich. A great deal of it is flowing from poor to non-existent.
How is this not obvious to everyone? I'll try classic deductive reasoning here:
1) - When the price of a thing is low ...... that usually indicates there is an oversupply.
2) - The price of lent money is low right now.
Therefore
3) - Lent money must be in a state of oversupply.
What could cause lent money to be in oversupply?
Answer: Too many people with money greatly in excess of their day to day needs and wants.
You call it lent money, but the money is being lent to the very government that you propose should cap earnings and violate freedoms to force this "economic imbalance" to decrease.
So, to your question, What could cause lent money to be in oversupply?
Answer: Other valid options (mostly due to government abuse of power) are too risky. The option with the least risk is (because of the damage to the free market done by the government's abuse of power) to loan the money to said government for their pet projects.
China has such a low wage and are so favorable to foreign businesses to begin with that businesses aren't effected much by the increase in wages. They save enough by being there that a doubling of wages doesn't effect their bottom line that much.
The research doesn't take into effect the jobs for which a $9.80 per hour will either increase the wages beyond the point where it makes sense to keep the employee or it will cause an increase in cost as the extra wages are added to the cost of goods and services.
Yes, it may create 100k jobs, but it will cost far more jobs than that and inflate costs.
And the "lower paid people spend a greater percentage of their pay" argument is only true if you are talking about consumer goods. Everyone "spends" all of their money. If it goes into the bank, the bank uses it to loan to others. If it goes into stocks/bonds the companies get the money to reinvest it in the goods and/or services they provide. Money never disappears, though people tend to think it does, as it isn't immediately apparent in the lives of those that have it.
[QUOTE=TheUnknowable;437419]Try running a business and then tell me that could actually ever be true in any context!
Extra consumer demand accounts for this already, also there is no credible evidence that proves a raise in the minimum wage would lead to overall job losses and not extra job creatation.
The point is lower paid workers would go out and spend their extra wages, creating extra demand from businesses, a universal tax cut that see's the more affluent banking their extra available income costs the government money and doesn't create extra demand or consumerism, therefore as a stimulus raising the minimum wage is far more effective. It also means businesses can manufacture more expensive and more profitable products thus allowing them to pay higher wages, creating a spiral upwards in wealth creation.
Rich countries pay higher wages, poorer countries pay low wages, it's a very simple principle.
But what section of the private market?
You're right that letting the government spend it poorly is basically just as bad as wasting it. (Or actually is wasting it.)
If you let the rich people have the money they'll lend it to the government. The government will waste it, and then need to keep raising taxes to keep up with the interest payments. (Though at present T-bills are earning negative real interest, so it's fine for now.)
If you give the money to the poor, they'll spend it on goods and services. Which is where it badly needs to go right now.
Do you have any evidence to support the claim that government abuse of power is what has caused all or most of the risk here? I don't see it. For example, the Housing Bubble is credited to insufficient regulation by most of the economists who talk about the issue. Not excessive regulation.
So, to your question, What could cause lent money to be in oversupply?
Answer: Other valid options (mostly due to government abuse of power) are too risky. The option with the least risk is (because of the damage to the free market done by the government's abuse of power) to loan the money to said government for their pet projects.
From what I can tell, lack of money in the hands of consumers is what is causing businesses to collapse. They're losing their markets. Regulated or unregulated, that would kill any business.
Manufacture of goods and services is the only way to increase real GDP. You're mistaking money for wealth again.
The money doesn't vanish. It just isn't available to fuel business.
Or very likely they buy gold or issue bad loans with it and then ask to be bailed out later.If it goes into the bank, the bank uses it to loan to others.
Not a lot of companies reinvesting in their own operations right now. Because most of them don't fore see that they'd be able to sell enough of their product to repay the loans if they expanded.
If it goes into stocks/bonds the companies get the money to reinvest it in the goods and/or services they provide.
People keep thinking if there's more money available to invest, companies will expand. They forget it's a two sided coin. The company has to be anticipating profits also, or there would be no expectation of repayment on any loans.
Money never disappears, though people tend to think it does, as it isn't immediately apparent in the lives of those that have it.
Exactly!!! MONEY doesn't disappear. However wealth does disappear. If we're not producing anything, we're not generating wealth.
If we're not spending our money on goods and services, then we're also not producing goods and services. Rich people don't buy enough goods and services. They're always trying to save their money instead of spend it. But the wealth vanishes if you don't spend the money on goods and services.
Kojax:
Causes of the United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Most of them boil down to:
1) government made law
2) company acts within law to make profit and obey regulations
or
2) gov loans money cheaply to high risk people (ex: fannie mae and fredie mac)
3) people can pay
4) people default on loans
5) people lose homes
ascended:
first section (1): for many businesses, wages aren't nearly as big an expenditure as equipment, supplies for manufacturing, electricity, etc.
2)extra consumer demand doesn't account for this, especially when you consider that most politically motivated polls alter their data to fit with their views. For reference, look up what the Obama administration originally said the effects of Obamacare would be, then compare them to what they really are. (increased insurance costs, insurance companies dropping individual coverage, cost to the government several times what they originally said, and it isn't even fully implemented, etc.)
3)I will agree that an increased minimum wage will have a much more obvious effect, because the tax cuts would free up more money for investment, which would take a while to show up. Would the average standard of living increase with an increased minimum wage? Doubtful, as job losses decrease the standard of living, and the inflation would lower it as well.
You are still buying into this idea that a minimum wage rise would automatically lead to an overall negative impact on employment, propaganda that is simply not bourne out by the evidence. With increased consumer demand companies take on more employees to produce more goods and services to meet the extra demand, even when the labour costs rise companies will still employ more staff, this is because they would still have increased labour costs for their existing staff and if they were to let these staff go they wouldn't be able to maintain production and profits, however by employing more staff they can expand production to increase profits thus offsetting the initial labour cost increases.
Companies get rid of staff when demand for their products and services is low or reduced, this happens in recessions when consumers have less money spend, or are reluctant to spend it, however in a period of recovery and increased consumer demand companies usually hire more staff and this is even with higher wage costs. Wages tend to start to rise naturally in recovery as companies compete to get the best staff.
Rising wages are a symbol of success and growth, keeping a low minimum wage sends a negative signal about the state of countries economy or economic prospects, as I stated previously to be a rich country it is necessary to have high wages.
Also Kojax made a very good point about a nations wealth, wealth is the goods and services produced and in order for a country to be wealthy it needs to actually be producing these goods and services. I repeat this to highlight the fact that in order to have the demand to produce these goods and services then first people need enough money in their pockets to purchase them.
What good comes of no minimum wage? We end up with wealthy business owners who refuse to pay salaries, and destitute workers who can't afford the products they are creating?
At least with a minimum wage, we can be assured that people are making enough money to SPEND in our economy.
So for those that don't support a minimum wage rise, how should minimum wage recipients be expected to afford to live given the current US minimum wage (I am led to believe) provides an income that is still below a poverty line? I'm trying to think of the options.
- Subsidised via government welfare
- Subsidised via family
- Assume they should have a second and possibly third job
Can we ban people for being idiots? Please tell me we can.
They would live off the government and cost taxpayers money.
In my opinion, you were that the case, one of us would have been banned already, depending on the political views of the Moderator. I'm glad they actually allow free speech on here. I wish you did to.
They will live with roommates or family while they improve their skills so that they CAN get a decent wage. That's the way it's supposed to work. Unfortunately people thing that everyone owes them something when in truth no one owes you anything unless they agreed to give it to you or you traded for it. Deal with it.
So you think a bunch of families (say 3) should rent cheap accommodation (possibly a 1 bedroomed apartment because that is all that's affordable) so they can afford a roof over their head and food to eat? Like what they do in the slums of second and third world countries?They will live with roommates or family while they improve their skills so that they CAN get a decent wage. That's the way it's supposed to work. Unfortunately people thing that everyone owes them something when in truth no one owes you anything unless they agreed to give it to you or you traded for it. Deal with it.
It's not about people believing they are owed anything, it's about putting controls in place so that any person, regardless of mental agility/talent, providing they are employed are able to earn a living that will enable them to live. If there is a valid job going the person performing that job should be awarded a valid income.
Ah, the American dream. Live in squalor with a half dozen other families working for peanuts until you can afford to go to college in 600 years.
There is also the option of committing crime.
For example: some very poor people could feel that theft is a viable way to feed themselves.
An increase in wages for the lowest paid should have a noticeable effect on petty crime - and everyone would profit from that.
No, wrong, that is not the way it's supposed to work. Everybody both needs and deserves a 'living wage', a sum of money that allows them to be able to afford to live, if workers arn't being given this, then they are being exploited and the employers are treating them as little more than slave labour.They will live with roommates or family while they improve their skills so that they CAN get a decent wage. That's the way it's supposed to work. Unfortunately people thing that everyone owes them something when in truth no one owes you anything unless they agreed to give it to you or you traded for it. Deal with it.
In democratic societies people should benefit from a nations wealth equally across all levels, you shouldn't have workers living below the poverty line. Historically it has been the disparity in wealth that have caused many of revolutions that took place in countries around the world. People will only ever put up with so much poverty before they rebel.
Don't be stupid. When American citizen are treated like work horses, paid so little they have to live in communes to survive, they simply say to themselves, "Buck up, fella. I'll be able to afford that new tie in a couple years. It's up the corporate ladder for me after that!"
Americans would NEVER resort to theft.
Where did I say you should have several families living in a one bedroom apartment? Way to put words in my mouth. Most of the people who make below the poverty line aren't the breadwinner in the family. Most of the others don't work full time.So you think a bunch of families (say 3) should rent cheap accommodation (possibly a 1 bedroomed apartment because that is all that's affordable) so they can afford a roof over their head and food to eat? Like what they do in the slums of second and third world countries?They will live with roommates or family while they improve their skills so that they CAN get a decent wage. That's the way it's supposed to work. Unfortunately people thing that everyone owes them something when in truth no one owes you anything unless they agreed to give it to you or you traded for it. Deal with it.
It's not about people believing they are owed anything, it's about putting controls in place so that any person, regardless of mental agility/talent, providing they are employed are able to earn a living that will enable them to live. If there is a valid job going the person performing that job should be awarded a valid income.
It's interesting how you say "it's not about people believing they are owed anything" then go on to name how people are owed something, by both the government and anyone who hires them part time to do a no-skill task.
How many people making $1 an hour does it take to afford a studio apartment?
Source?
I don't know about being owed something, but I do know that telling Americans their work is worth less than minimum wage will not work. People will riot. What would you do if your boss told you, "Minimum wage just got dropped. I'm paying you a dollar an hour now. Deal with it"?
1) Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2011
http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2013/ted_20130325.htm
2) I'd have to have a job in the first place for that to happen. I don't. I even have an assosiates from a college (I got it to increase my chances of getting hired and my eventual wage). If that happened, I would be there to take the job that others wouldn't do. Also, it would drop that low (maybe $5/hr at the least), as his competitors might not do that and he will only get the worst employees and the ones who want to work the least.
also:
http://www.epionline.org/minimum-wag...ge-statistics/
Last edited by TheUnknowable; July 6th, 2013 at 08:44 PM.
But what if that's the only way they can afford to put a roof over their head?
References?
So what sort of jobs do you think should have no minimum wage or a minimum wage that despite someone working full time they still live under the poverty line?
The question should not be "should the minimum wage rise", the question should be "justify why a minimum wage should not apply to all and why a minimum wage should not provide an adequate income".
1) It won't happen. There's no point in play "what if" for something that is that unlikly.
2) already posted it
3) I think My first post covered it. My other posts covered the second paragraph.
| « Black Republicans | Libertarian constitution » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
