Should the Federal Min Wage be Raised?

[Ice]

Discuss. I have an opinion, but I want to hear others first. I love this macroeconomics class... I think I've finally found my calling.

[Crazed Rabbit]

No.

It is bad economically (Less people hired, especially for small businesses, etc.), and

People should be able to engage in transactions with each other as they see fit, not as the government demands.

CR

[Proletariat]

No. Not until we do something about illegal immigration. These scumbags want to allow every Mexican they see amnesty, plummeting low skilled wages, then they hike up the minimum wage for these jobs. Pick one or the other, Democrats (and Bush). Either rape the working class outright, or stick up for them.

[lars573]

The very idea of the federal government setting minimum wage. Ricidulous.

[Lemur]

Prole is right about the root of the problem. Illegal immigrants and the businesses that love them make a mockery of the minimum wage, anyway. Why bother having one at all, given the reality on the ground?

FWIW, people have been forecasting rampant inflation and the death of the American economy due to minimum wage (and hikes) for decades. The impact seems to be marginal, in every sense of the word.

[GoreBag]

I have nothing to add, but the .org doesn't let me make empty posts.

[Xiahou]

No, there should be no minimum wage at all. People should be able to work for whatever wage they're will to and employers should pay what they need to to find and keep employees.

[Fisherking]

Bad idea...the short version:


Minimum Wage doesn’t help the guy at the bottom because all bossiness have to raise prices to cover additional costs of employment. (usually the quarter before it takes effect, so you loose even before you get it)

Because all employers can't just raise prices (commodities) it costs jobs.

These price increases effectively give everyone less buying power (a pay cut).

However, the governments have more tax income. (sales tax, withholding tax, social security, Medicare, etc.) It's still inflated but they see more gold.

It all seems pretty cynical to me…

[Banquo's Ghost]

I don't know how it works in the States, but in countries where the government has a benefit available to top up wages to a basic living income, the minimum wage stops employers using this as a subsidy to depress the wage they need to pay.

I often read that many Americans on low pay have to work several jobs just to make ends meet, so this gap probably doesn't apply there.

[Major Robert Dump]

Poor people should know their place. If they don't like being poor, then they need to get married and have some kids so they get tax breaks and welfare. The idea of paying 15 more cents for a Crispy Taco so some scmhuck can make 35 more dollars a week absolutely offends me. If minimum wage workers want to make more money then they should save up for 14 years and get an education at a Big 12 university or go to VoTech and learn how to weld. I also don't believe in overtime or workers compensation. Stupid government interference.

[Fisherking]

The offensive part of this to me is that extra $35 a week has turned in to a net loss of $6.35 in an attempt to make his lot better, but everyone feels so good about helping the guy. But no one can be bothered to look at that…so if they raise it more maybe someday he will brake even…or get a new job, or maybe a miracle will happen….

Should we mandate that everyone make the same amount and anything extra goes to the government?

[AntiochusIII]

Poor people should know their place. If they don't like being poor, then they need to get married and have some kids so they get tax breaks and welfare. The idea of paying 15 more cents for a Crispy Taco so some scmhuck can make 35 more dollars a week absolutely offends me. If minimum wage workers want to make more money then they should save up for 14 years and get an education at a Big 12 university or go to VoTech and learn how to weld. I also don't believe in overtime or workers compensation. Stupid government interference.Sarcasm? ~;)

Pretty laissez-faire attitudes flying around here. Makes me wonder. They tend to have just as much flaws as the socialist raise-everybody's-wages-and-feel-good attitudes.

[doc_bean]

Only if they can passa law that forces employers who hire under minimum wage (including hiring illegals) to pay back all of the difference for the duration of the violation (half of what was owned to the employee to the employee, the other half to the state, and all that was owned to the state, to the state), plus a heavy fine.

Minimum wage isn't so bad as some people here claim, compnanies will demand more from the workers that they have to pay more, it's only slightly problematic in true unskilled labour when there is a large workforce (market), which there probably isn't, seeing as how many illegals are employed.

[Fisherking]

I was going to post these on the quotations page, but I think they fit better here at the moment.

Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first.
Mark Twain

I am opposed to millionaires, but it would be dangerous to offer me the position.
Mark Twain

If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man.
Mark Twain

When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.
Mark Twain

[Mooks]

Im going to be a lifeguard hopefully next summer (im 15). I read in the newspaper (15 year old reading a newspaper eh?) that they were increasing it, and I was hoping for it. A little bit more extra money in my pocket.

The newspaper was for it also. Said something about a big percentage of people were getting minimun wage but the cost of living is wayy over minuman wage.

[Marshal Murat]

1)Bad minimum wage increase. While the Democrats call themselves the 'small buisness party' the minimum wage increase isn't what the economy needs. The minimum wage, I feel, cancels out any advantage it renders. With small companies having to pay their employee's more, they have to raise the prices on whatever they sell. Cancels it out.

2)Minimum wage is good. It prevents employers from paying nil for the labor. If you look at 1800's industrial wages for iron smelting, textiles, or other labor, its however works for the lowest wage. This allows everyone to theoretically work at the same level.

3)If companies weren't protecting their companies *China* cough, then we wouldn't have to raise the minimum wage.

[Fragony]

No, there should be no minimum wage at all. People should be able to work for whatever wage they're will to and employers should pay what they need to to find and keep employees.

That stands or falls with the goodwill of the employer, what if a company like Wallmart or another giant manages to bleed a towns economy dry, killing all local shops and services,then not having a minimum is too open for exploitation of the workers. But it should be just that, a minimum, too little to live and too much to die, company's need to stay competitive after all, and people can take an extra job.

[JimBob]

Im going to be a lifeguard hopefully next summer (im 15). I read in the newspaper (15 year old reading a newspaper eh?) that they were increasing it, and I was hoping for it. A little bit more extra money in my pocket.
Minimum Wage doesn't apply to minors. We have on that is lower, 4.50 to 5.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

A few points to consider:


The US Department of Labor reported 97.5% of working Americans make more than minimum wage of $5.15 per hour in 2005. Adults, age 25 or older, earning minimum wage accounted for only 1.5% of the labor force. And, among working adults earning minimum wage, only 0.3% were living at or below our nation’s poverty line. In other words, 80% of those who stand to benefit from a hike in the minimum wage do not even come from households living at or below the poverty line.

The face of America’s minimum-wage earner is typically not the single parent trying to feed his or her family. According to the 2005 Department of Labor statistics, over 82% of minimum-wage earners did not have any dependents. Half of all those earning minimum wage were under age 25 and one-fourth were between the ages of 16 and 19. Three-fifths of all minimum wage employees worked only part time.

In fact, America’s minimum-wage earners are mostly teenagers and young adults who work only part-time, have no dependents and enjoy an average annual household income of $64,273, according to a 2006 report by The Heritage Foundation.

So is this legislation a concerned act of caring for that 0.3% of the American workforce -- or might it just (purely by coincidence of course) be an effort to pay off support Union Labor, many of whose contracts are set up not as wage rates per hour, but as X amount per hour above the Federal Minimum Wage.

If you abolish the federal minimum wage, the unions will all negotiate contracts for flat wage per hour compensations; the companies that traditionally employ almost all student-aged part timers will lower their wages -- they'll be able to increase their profits at the expense of their workers since students don't have the skills to say TTJASI in any meaningful way [note, this will put a hit on the recording industry and the movie industry as this market segment is big for them and that segment will have less money]; and the vast majority of workers will continue to recieve more or less the same compensation that they do now.

Is it wise government to legislate for a segment of our society that numbers fewer than 900,000 persons out of a nation of 300 millions, when the impact of that change will (must) cause a decrease in economic viability for many US small businesses (20%+ of all jobs), increase costs to consumers (higher union wages = higher prices for many goods/services), and make the purchase of a home more difficult (REGULATED increase in wages = inflationary pressure = tightened money supply by Fed = increased interest rates)?

Yet the measure is popular (75%+ by latest polling data) and has direct political benefit to the Democrat party. Therefore, it is a done deal, get used to it.

[Lemur]

It is bad economically (Less people hired, especially for small businesses, etc.)

No, there should be no minimum wage at all. People should be able to work for whatever wage they're will to and employers should pay what they need to to find and keep employees.

Minimum Wage doesn’t help the guy at the bottom because all bossiness have to raise prices to cover additional costs of employment. (usually the quarter before it takes effect, so you loose even before you get it)

Because all employers can't just raise prices (commodities) it costs jobs.
These posts have been brought to you by the letter Q, the Cato Institute and Ayn Rand. Special thanks to the late 1800s laissez-faire capitalists, with a tip of the hat to Montgomery Burns.

[Scurvy]

Poor people should know their place. If they don't like being poor, then they need to get married and have some kids so they get tax breaks and welfare.

I hope thats sarcasm....



Im going to be a lifeguard hopefully next summer (im 15). I read in the newspaper (15 year old reading a newspaper eh?) that they were increasing it, and I was hoping for it. A little bit more extra money in my pocket.

certainly in the uk it only applies 16--> over i think, i had a few months at start of my job (when i was 15) where i was paid below

this all sounds slight laissez faire to me (already been mentioned) something that i thought got left behind in the late 1800's :2thumbsup:

--> minimum wage is good and necessary, rise would be slightly questionable due to illegals undercutting, and the amount it would cost economically...

:2thumbsup:

[Xiahou]

These posts have been brought to you by the letter Q, the Cato Institute and Ayn Rand. Special thanks to the late 1800s laissez-faire capitalists, with a tip of the hat to Montgomery Burns.
*cough* SPAM *cough*cough* :inquisitive:


Seamus makes a good point- the Democrats push the minimum wage to pander to their union special interests, but use the "Why do you hate poor people?" attack to demonize any who oppose it. It's a clever and effect attempt at drowning out and serious debate on the issue. Forget the fact that virtually no one depends on minimum wage jobs to get by....

Honestly, I would have a hard time even thinking of a job in my area that pays minimum wage. Even the job signs plastered in the windows at the local Burger King offer wages well above the minimum. Our unemployment is very low and we have a growing economy- with a tight labor market, wages grow on their own without government tinkering.

[Ice]

*cough* SPAM *cough*cough* :inquisitive:


Seamus makes a good point- the Democrats push the minimum wage to pander to their union special interests, but use the "Why do you hate poor people?" attack to demonize any who oppose it. It's a clever and effect attempt at drowning out and serious debate on the issue. Forget the fact that virtually no one depends on minimum wage jobs to get by....

Honestly, I would have a hard time even thinking of a job in my area that pays minimum wage. Even the job signs plastered in the windows at the local Burger King offer wages well above the minimum. Our unemployment is very low and we have a growing economy- with a tight labor market, wages grow on their own without government tinkering.

:yes:, I was waiting for someone to post something like this. How I feel exactly.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It doesn't effect enough people to be bad economically. Didn't this pass the senate by 94-3?

[yesdachi]

I think it is a smart thing to have a minimum set by the gov. (companies will rape you given the chance) but I also think the people have the responsibility to work for what they think they are worth, don’t do a job that doesn’t pay what you think it should, unless your standards are too high, they will eventually offer more money to fill the position.

I can not think of a job around here that pays minimum wage (and MI still has double digit unemployment). When I was in high school I de-tasseled corn during the summer for more than minimum wage and that was the lamest seasonal farm work ever. I remember on the first episode of “30 Days”, the FX TV series, Morgan tries to live on minimum wage for 30 days and is not even able to find a job that would pay that low.

Half of me says go ahead and raise it, no one is working for it anyway, while the other half of me says, why bother most everyone is ignoring it. If some companies are struggling so badly that raising their employees wages by a few bucks a week puts them under then maybe they are not a strong enough company to deserve to be around anyway.

Disclaimer: I am pretty ignorant when it comes to economics and the long term repercussions of some economic decisions. The same naivety makes me want to eliminate all mosquito’s even thou I suspect they fill some critical role in other animals survival.

[Samurai Waki]

We need to increase minimum wage. The last time I saw, 65% of youths within the next 5-15 years will not be able to afford a house, unless the value of land lowers considerably in the next couple of years. That means we'll have a good 20% of population held up in tenaments and the rest living in low income housing. Now Thats a bad forecast on the economy.

[Fisherking]

Well if you don't like the short explanation of the fallacy of minimum wage, chances are you would only fall asleep and never finish the long one.:shame:

I see it as a cheap vote getting scam…but if you want to believe it go right ahead.:no:

Suffice it to say that I favour something that would actually benefit the worker rather than just some feel good measure.

If you want to tie workers wages in a company to the top CEO's salary I'm not going to say a word. I firmly believe that the employer has as much responsibility to his workers as to his stockholders, after all, who is more responsible for profit and productivity…but try to get that passed in Washington…if either party brought it up for a vote it I would buy you all a beer.:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Telling why it’s a good idea is a waste of time..so *deleted*:smash:

:help: Sense you guys think Congress and the Government can fix all this stuff and are doing so wonderfully maybe you should get them to look beyond economics….to say relativity and gravity…have them save us all time and effort!:dizzy2:

[Crazed Rabbit]

I think it is a smart thing to have a minimum set by the gov. (companies will rape you given the chance)
And unions will do the same to companies, and get support from the government. This nannying should stop - if you want a higher paying job, work for it, don't cry to the gov't.



Half of me says go ahead and raise it, no one is working for it anyway, while the other half of me says, why bother most everyone is ignoring it. If some companies are struggling so badly that raising their employees wages by a few bucks a week puts them under then maybe they are not a strong enough company to deserve to be around anyway.
What do you mean, 'deserve' to be around?


Disclaimer: I am pretty ignorant when it comes to economics and the long term repercussions of some economic decisions. The same naivety makes me want to eliminate all mosquito’s even thou I suspect they fill some critical role in other animals survival.
No argument here.


We need to increase minimum wage. The last time I saw, 65% of youths within the next 5-15 years will not be able to afford a house, unless the value of land lowers considerably in the next couple of years. That means we'll have a good 20% of population held up in tenaments and the rest living in low income housing. Now Thats a bad forecast on the economy.
Why don't you argue for a decrease on housing regulation to lower housing costs?
Gov't regulation almost never helps the economy. Ya, those lucky enough to get jobs will be able to afford slightly more - though the cost of everything will increase due to inflation, but people will buy less, and get less for their money.

Take a look at the stats Seamus posted.


Pretty laissez-faire attitudes flying around here. Makes me wonder. They tend to have just as much flaws as the socialist raise-everybody's-wages-and-feel-good attitudes.

No, actually, they don't. Adam Smith is based upon human nature, socialism goes against human nature and economics.

CR

[Xiahou]

We need to increase minimum wage. The last time I saw, 65% of youths within the next 5-15 years will not be able to afford a house, unless the value of land lowers considerably in the next couple of years. That means we'll have a good 20% of population held up in tenaments and the rest living in low income housing. Now Thats a bad forecast on the economy.
And is that because 65% of youths are making minimum wage? I think not. If you have it, I'd love to read the article that's taken from though.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It doesn't effect enough people to be bad economically. Didn't this pass the senate by 94-3?

See post above. The number of people being influenced by the officially intended direct effect is small - possibly inconsequential.

How it plays into other factors indicates a far broader impact -- and one that is more to the bad than the good in my opinion.

[Papewaio]

If you want to tie workers wages in a company to the top CEO's salary I'm not going to say a word. I firmly believe that the employer has as much responsibility to his workers as to his stockholders, after all.

Isn't the CEO just a lowly wage earner too? ~;) Why should one workers salary be tied to another?

He would have to be a shareholder/on the board/chairman to be otherwise.

[Fisherking]

Isn't the CEO just a lowly wage earner too? ~;) Why should one workers salary be tied to another?

He would have to be a shareholder/on the board/chairman to be otherwise.

Sorry! This is just one of those things that if you don't know it won't do me a darn bit of good to tell you.

Lecturing Socialists on economics is as fruitless as sending an Archaeologist to lecture fundamentalists.

I suggest that some of you may want to find out why all the past experiments in socialism have failed and what caused those failures.

I'll bet some of you even believe that there are Socialist Governments working just fine today, but if you examine them you will find out that they are not Socialist but hybrids.

Good Luck!

[Samurai Waki]

Pure Capitalist Governments aren't exactley the greatest affairs either. Just take a good look at Russia. Sweden and Germany are dominantly Socialist and aren't in danger of economic collapse. I think all in all, countries that stay somewhere near the center tend to do the best.

[Xiahou]

Pure Capitalist Governments aren't exactley the greatest affairs either. Just take a good look at Russia. Sweden and Germany are dominantly Socialist and aren't in danger of economic collapse. I think all in all, countries that stay somewhere near the center tend to do the best.
Russia came in at 120th in the 2007 Economic Freedom Index (http://www.heritage.org/index/country.cfm?id=Russia).

[Fisherking]

Pure Capitalist Governments aren't exactley the greatest affairs either. Just take a good look at Russia. Sweden and Germany are dominantly Socialist and aren't in danger of economic collapse. I think all in all, countries that stay somewhere near the center tend to do the best.

Why do people always look to extremes to figure out what they believe?

Why don't people like to think for themselves?

Extremists of any sort are usually thought of as nutcases.

If Extremes are thought of as mountain tops, wouldn't all the fertile ground lie in the valley between?

Of course it is easier to think of those who disagree with us as extremists. :oops:

[caravel]

One could also say that having a low or non existant minimum wage, actually encourages employers to pay low wages in the first place, which would then provide the incentive to illegal or legal immigrants entering, working in those low paid positions that others won't take, to the annoyance of "nationalist" and "capitalist" alike (but to the delight of the capitalists that are hiring them).

Also the ridiculous idea that the poor somehow only have themselves to blame is the most flawed ideology of all time. Without unskilled underpaid people there would be no capitalism. The capitalist system thrives on poverty, without which it would cease to exist. This is why a capitalist system strives to ensure that the poor remain in the majority, because without them capitalism would grind to a halt. The owner of a large company needs the low skilled people to stock his shelves, pack goods into boxes, answer the phones or drive a van or fork lift truck. If all of those individuals had instead gone to university and become e.g. lawyers, there would be none to fill such roles. Captialism is also totally at odds with nationalism. Where nationalism is interested in the "nation", capitalism is all for the individual. If the capitalist can produce his goods cheaper in the far east, he will close production in his own country, sacking the workers, and move production to there. Where is the nationalism in that?

[AntiochusIII]

Also the ridiculous idea that the poor somehow only have themselves to blame is the most flawed ideology of all time. Without unskilled underpaid people there would be no capitalism. The capitalist system thrives on poverty, without which it would cease to exist. This is why a capitalist system strives to ensure that the poor remain in the majority, because without them capitalism would grind to a halt. The owner of a large company needs the low skilled people to stock his shelves, pack goods into boxes, answer the phones or drive a van or fork lift truck. If all of those individuals had instead gone to university and become e.g. lawyers, there would be none to fill such roles. Captialism is also totally at odds with nationalism. Where nationalism is interested in the "nation", capitalism is all for the individual. If the capitalist can produce his goods cheaper in the far east, he will close production in his own country, sacking the workers, and move production to there. Where is the nationalism in that?I'm not going to defend all the 19th century I'm-rich-therefore-I'm-good laissez-faire flying around this thread (look how that gets the People to, eh?), but your point about the capitalist system needing the poor can be countered well enough with the advances of technology. Considering the progress thus far, it won't be too far fetched to imagine that robots and other automated functions will be able to effectively do many of the low skilled jobs of today. It is merely a continuation of the process of industrialization really when you think about it: prior to that old Industrial Revolution we couldn't produce half as many goods as we can now with the same population and resource. Now we just consume more of the "surplus" since then and get comfortably fat. One could assume that a possible scenario in the future is that humans will all become "skilled" workers and just consume more of the products to balance the supply-demand thing. Consumerism. :yes:

Oh, and Nationalism is soooo 20th century.

Then again, raising minimum wage in this country is like raising hell. I rather think some fears the Red Menace would take over should it be raised a dollar more.

[yesdachi]

And unions will do the same to companies, and get support from the government. This nannying should stop - if you want a higher paying job, work for it, don't cry to the gov't.
I have nothing good to say about unions either, they had their time and place and their glory days have passed. The way Unions currently act is shameful compared to their heroic (yep, standing up to the man is indeed heroic IMO) origins. Additionally I don’t consider having a reasonable minimum to be crying and I agree that if someone wants more they should work for it.


What do you mean, 'deserve' to be around?
If you can’t pay your employees a decent wage and stay in the black what business do you have being in business? How do you deserve my sale if you can’t run your company well enough to treat your employees well? “Deserve” is matter of opinion and completely relative, and it is my opinion that if you cant run your company well enough to be able to pay your employees a few bucks a week more because of a minimum increase then you are not running your business well enough and don’t deserve to be in business. Diversify your customer base, offer more products or services, advertise, increase sales force, develop more efficient ways to do common tasks, take advantage of tax breaks, trim the fat, and if you do all that and still cant absorb an increase in the minimums, you should... switch businesses :sweatdrop:.

[Proletariat]

Then again, raising minimum wage in this country is like raising hell. I rather think some fears the Red Menace would take over should it be raised a dollar more.

Huh? There's like 89% popular support for this minimum wage increase. What are you talking about 'raising hell'?


Washington, DC - Today, the Democratic Congress passed a bipartisan measure to increase the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour. With 89 percent of Americans backing this measure to help our country's working families, President Bush and Republicans in Congress now have the opportunity to help millions of hard-working Americans and their families by supporting this legislation.

http://www.wisdems.org/ht/display/ReleaseDetails/i/996620

[Spino]

I don't know how it works in the States, but in countries where the government has a benefit available to top up wages to a basic living income, the minimum wage stops employers using this as a subsidy to depress the wage they need to pay.

I often read that many Americans on low pay have to work several jobs just to make ends meet, so this gap probably doesn't apply there.

This may be true but it doesn't help matters that the average American, especially those belonging to the post-war generations, spend almost everything they make and then some. What I mean by 'and then some' is that the USA firmly entrenched in the number one spot when individual credit debt is concerned.

I am not talking about spending money on the necessities either, we're talking about constantly eating out instead of buying food at the supermarket and eating it at home, paying premium prices for luxury goods and services, needlessly purchasing new appliances/gadgets/vehicles to replace old ones that neither inadequate or run down/broken every few years, etc. Post-war generation Americans love to live beyond their means and many will do whatever it takes to maintain a certain lifestyle.

Should a couple be popping out several children when they can only afford to take care of one or two? Should parents take the whole family out to eat several times a week instead of once or twice? Does Dad really need a 50" Plasma TV when that top rated 32" flatscreen TV he bought a few years ago is still going strong? Does a woman need to spend $200+ every time she gets her hair done? Should those flunkies from the burbs and countryside looking to live 'la vida loca' in NYC really be considering vastly overpriced apartments in Manhattan and Brooklyn?

We have taken the 'keeping up with the Joneses' statement to the absolute extreme. Speaking purely in terms of fiscal responsibility the contrast between the pre-war and post-war generations is startling. I would not be surprised to learn that an alarming percentage of lower to middle class Americans experiencing economic distress are suffering because of their own irresponsibility and lack of foresight.

As to the raising of minimum wages, I wonder what would happen if the current trend which has executives being vastly overpaid, especially those whose performance and impact upon a company's profitability is downright appalling, were to be reversed? In the good old days executives got paid several times the average employee's wage and generally received bonuses proportionate to their performance. Nowadays the pay scale is totally out of whack, with the average executive being paid 40(?) times the average employee's wage, and this does not include bonuses or stock options. If this unnecessary wastage were to be funneled back to the employees or to improving the company's efficiency and growth (like the good old days) would minimum wage even be an issue anymore?

[AntiochusIII]

Huh? There's like 89% popular support for this minimum wage increase. What are you talking about 'raising hell'?In this thread, I meant. Bad wording from my part. :bow: I'm quite aware the measure gathers public imagination well enough, which is probably why so many in Congress are openly supporting it.

I'd imagine that we laymen tend to believe that it might just have some sort of domino effect pushing all the wages upwards, even slightly -- but hey, the average American is no economist and the hoped-for effect is probably just a pipe dream (not that economists aren't whacked in the head, in any case); there will, of course, be a domino effect pushing prices upwards also. Admittedly, there's absolutely no reason larger corporations like Wal-Mart will be in any serious way affected by an extra dollar paid per employee, considering all the "outsourcing" that happens; except, of course, greed.

[Papewaio]

Isn't the CEO just a lowly wage earner too? Why should one workers salary be tied to another?

He would have to be a shareholder/on the board/chairman to be otherwise.


I find your post on the whole misdirected...


Sorry! This is just one of those things that if you don't know it won't do me a darn bit of good to tell you.

So if someone doesn't know something, they can't be informed? That is not the most inspiring message I have read.



Lecturing Socialists on economics is as fruitless as sending an Archaeologist to lecture fundamentalists.

Where in my post does it show I am a Socialist? A CEO is a Chief Executive Officer. They are not automatically shareholders, members of the board or chairman. Those are separate roles, but by no means mutually exclusive. The role of CEO is the head worker of a company who reports to Chairman and board. A CEO can also be the Chairman and many other blends. This does not change that the role of the CEO is as a worker. They get paid for their performance, they do not get paid (unless share options is used) based on the performance of their investments as investors do. CEOs work for their money, investors make their money work for them.



I suggest that some of you may want to find out why all the past experiments in socialism have failed and what caused those failures.

I'll bet some of you even believe that there are Socialist Governments working just fine today, but if you examine them you will find out that they are not Socialist but hybrids.

Good Luck!

Totally disconnected to what I had posted. I state that no wage earners earnings should be tied to the basis of another... that is certainly not socialist, or even communist with the idea of equal pay for all regardless of work. I really find it hard how you come out and call pay based on work performance Socialist.

[Xiahou]

In this thread, I meant. Bad wording from my part. :bow: I'm quite aware the measure gathers public imagination well enough, which is probably why so many in Congress are openly supporting it.

I'd imagine that we laymen tend to believe that it might just have some sort of domino effect pushing all the wages upwards, even slightly -- but hey, the average American is no economist and the hoped-for effect is probably just a pipe dream (not that economists aren't whacked in the head, in any case); there will, of course, be a domino effect pushing prices upwards also. Admittedly, there's absolutely no reason larger corporations like Wal-Mart will be in any serious way affected by an extra dollar paid per employee, considering all the "outsourcing" that happens; except, of course, greed.
I think it has to do more with the "Why do you hate the poor?" component of it. If you're not in favor of raising the minimum wage, you must be some rich elitist who thinks poor people need to know their place... That's how we're being demonized yes? Engaging in emotional appeals is an excellent way to silence any serious, rational debate on an issue.

We're also continuously misled about how many people are actually earning minimum wage and how many of those depend on it to make a living.

[Goofball]

As far as I'm concerned, the minimum wage should be eliminated altogether.

Labour is a commodity just like any other, and should command whatever price that the market dictates.

Right now where I live, the housing market is completely out of control (one of the top 5 most expensive places in Canada). Because of that, carpenters and other trades in Victoria are commanding exhorbitant wages, as contractors are travelling from jobsite to jobsite trying to steal each others' employees.

Because of this inflation, it is impossible at this point for all but the wealthiest Canadians to enter the Victoria market. So why shouldn't we step in and impose salary caps on carpenters?

[Xiahou]

So why shouldn't we step in and impose salary caps on carpenters?We tried that in the US before, under FDR (surprise, surprise) when he created NIRA (http://www.fee.org/pdf/the-freeman/1005RMEColumn.pdf). It was the SCOTUS' unanimous overturning of the law that prompted his court packing threat, which pretty much brought an end to the previously textualist court. :shame:

But yes, labor is a resource. Incidentally, Lemur, this is where I part ways with Cato, which is in favor of open borders and no minimum wage, whereas I see that as moronically counter-productive. By letting unlimited numbers of illegal immigrants flow in uncontrolled you mess up the supply side of the labor equation.

[Crazed Rabbit]

As far as I'm concerned, the minimum wage should be eliminated altogether.

Labour is a commodity just like any other, and should command whatever price that the market dictates.

Right now where I live, the housing market is completely out of control (one of the top 5 most expensive places in Canada). Because of that, carpenters and other trades in Victoria are commanding exhorbitant wages, as contractors are travelling from jobsite to jobsite trying to steal each others' employees.

Because of this inflation, it is impossible at this point for all but the wealthiest Canadians to enter the Victoria market. So why shouldn't we step in and impose salary caps on carpenters?

Bravo, good sir.

I wonder what the regulations are on new housing around Victoria are and if the area's geography doesn't play a part (There's only so much room around VIctoria, after all)

CR

[Fisherking]

I find your post on the whole misdirected....

I didn't mean to direct the post specifically to you…sorry if you thought so.

Economics is a science just as is physics with its own set of laws and principals.

Those who ignore that are ignoring scientifically proven principals in favour of what feels good.

I used CEO as the highest paid individual in a firm. The board of directors are often paid only a token wage and are not fulltime employees. CEO would also apply to companies who have no directors.

My post was mostly a matter of disgust with the hypocrisy of those who will argue in favour of logic when it involves religion vs. science but ignore it in matters of economics.

I am sorry I let emotion get the better of me and I apologise for that.

[AntiochusIII]

My post was mostly a matter of disgust with the hypocrisy of those who will argue in favour of logic when it involves religion vs. science but ignore it in matters of economics.What exactly is that "logic of economics" in the first place anyway?

If you're going to call hypocrisy on people then at least try to elaborate on the comparison. In fact, if the "logic of economics" are in the works right now I'd rather think it's one screwed up set of "logics," one best tempered by those blasphemously illogical measures we're talking about.

[Fisherking]

To ? by AntiochusIII:What exactly is that "logic of economics" in the first place anyway?

Economics. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved February 07, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Economics

1.Economics(used with a singular verb ) the science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, or the material welfare of humankind.
:inquisitive: ..Oh gosh! They call it a science….how interesting…..

[AntiochusIII]

1.Economics(used with a singular verb ) the science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, or the material welfare of humankind.
:inquisitive: ..Oh gosh! They call it a science….how interesting…..And that dictionary illustrates...?

My question rather pertains to your claim of people contradicting said logic of economics because they agree with the minimum wage raise, with presumably bad results -- your point would be better served by an actual example about that. One which obviously requires at least a reference on what logic are we talking about here; something like Rule of Supply and Demand for starters. (And that rule, by the way, while fundamentally logical, turns out to be quite the trouble once practiced in real life. What's with the more sublime factors and all.)

[Papewaio]

I didn't mean to direct the post specifically to you…sorry if you thought so.

Economics is a science just as is physics with its own set of laws and principals.

...

My post was mostly a matter of disgust with the hypocrisy of those who will argue in favour of logic when it involves religion vs. science but ignore it in matters of economics.


It's not quite as refined as physics is or has the data sets available to chemistry. That is not the fault of economics, it is more the case that the amount of humans, number of companies in the stock market etc are statistically far less then a mole...since about 18 grams of water has about 10^16 times more molecules then there are humans... makes things a bit more predictable.

As a guy with a degree in science I have a lot of these interesting debates with my wife who has a degree in political economics... and one day I might even win one of them.

[Fisherking]

And that dictionary illustrates...?

My question rather pertains to your claim of people contradicting said logic of economics because ... What's with the more sublime factors and all.)

Marginalism, Price, Supply and Demand, and a few others are all at work.
Sorry there isn't room here for all the information you request. It is a complex system of interactions. Lest just say that an artificial pressure pushing wages up also drives up pressure on prices.


In my first post I outlined in simple terms the fact that Businesses attempt to remain at a profitable margin, when artificial wage increases are mandated, by either raising prices or reducing costs. That the inflationary pressure may actually reduce the buying power of the individuals it was attempting to help.

This was seen as proof of my evil intent to oppress the working classes.

In a subsequent post I tried to point out that if wages are tied to profit and the wages of the chief officers that it removes that option. It places it in the companies operating margins and makes wages a percentage of gross profit.

As is typical of most arguments when confronted by things they do not wish to know it was met with ridicule.

If people do not wish to learn or understand they turn off…hence the analogy.

Economics is a fact bases science with demonstratable models for the most part but human factors make it more complex…like when do people stop buying because of price.

I am not a Scientist however, I am a Historian. I study past failures and watch how they continue to make the same mistakes again, and again. A tiny bit of thought might at least slow the process some.

[rory_20_uk]

Socialists believe that humans are like worker ants who will do tasks because they need to be done, and not be selfish in requiring incentives to do so.

An army of clones with no Id would be ideal, and would accept an equal wage for doing a simple job that many can do as opposed to a complex job that requires much training. But then there'd be no need for something such as money as everyone would take what they need and give back what they can. Sadly this isn't, and never has been the case.

~:smoking:

[Crazed Rabbit]

In Arizona...
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0210biz-teenwork0210.html


New wage boost puts squeeze on teenage workers across Arizona
Employers are cutting back hours, laying off young staffers

Chad Graham
The Arizona Republic
Feb. 10, 2007 12:00 AM
Oh, for the days when Arizona's high school students could roll pizza dough, sweep up sticky floors in theaters or scoop ice cream without worrying about ballot initiatives affecting their earning power.

That's certainly not the case under the state's new minimum-wage law that went into effect last month.

Some Valley employers, especially those in the food industry, say payroll budgets have risen so much that they're cutting hours, instituting hiring freezes and laying off employees.

And teens are among the first workers to go.

Somehow, 'I told you so'...explains it very well.


Sadly this isn't, and never has been the case.

I am going to be very happy that humans are not clones with the brains of ants, thank you very much.

CR

[Major Robert Dump]

God forbid they raise prices just a bit to cover the extra payroll. I don't buy the "we'll lose business if we raise prices" bit because all said businesses competition will be raising prices, too.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Supposing they do, then everything becomes more expensive, we have inflation, and the real value of the minimum wage drops, making people whine for another increase.

CR

[Hosakawa Tito]

The main problem is that many businesses in the US must compete globally, footing the majority of their employee's health care, while most competing companies in other countries do not have this huge legacy cost.

[ajaxfetish]

Woah, cool new stitches, Hosakawa!

Ajax

[Lemur]

And then we have the ugly side (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTZhZDdiYmJlNDViYTAwOWExNmUyMmQ5ODlmMWYwYTU=) of the immigration/minimum wage debate emerging:


Karl Rove explained the rationale behind the president's amnesty/open-borders proposal this way: "I don't want my 17-year-old son to have to pick tomatoes or make beds in Las Vegas."

[Papewaio]

What, no work ethic?

[Fisherking]

As Tocqueville wrote: "In the United States professions are more or less laborious, more or less profitable; but they are never either high or low: every honest calling is honorable." The farther we move from that notion, the closer we come to the idea that the lawyer is somehow better than the parking-lot attendant, undercutting the very foundation of republican government.


To borrow from Lincoln, our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid.


To me this issue is more like another topic but one I would have no trouble getting into… to me those who feel they are better are the ones least likely to pass on their genes if disaster strikes.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think It is a bad idea. State Goverments should be the only ones deciding to up it (until inflation makes $5.25 peanuts in ALL states). It is all relative anyway and as long as the federal minimum wage actually serves as the lowest possible safety net, it won't scare low wage domestic jobs away.

[Crazed Rabbit]

And then we have the ugly side (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTZhZDdiYmJlNDViYTAwOWExNmUyMmQ5ODlmMWYwYTU=) of the immigration/minimum wage debate emerging:


Karl Rove explained the rationale behind the president's amnesty/open-borders proposal this way: "I don't want my 17-year-old son to have to pick tomatoes or make beds in Las Vegas."

Ugly side indeed - or perhaps the stupid side. Hey, let's create a group of second class citizens! No one should be too good for menial work.

Crazed Rabbit

[Divinus Arma]

No.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Woah, cool new stitches, Hosakawa!

Ajax

What, this old thing?:bow:


Karl Rove explained the rationale behind the president's amnesty/open-borders proposal this way: "I don't want my 17-year-old son to have to pick tomatoes or make beds in Las Vegas."

Performing manual labor tends to build character, which explains some of Rove's lack in that regard.

[Spino]

And then we have the ugly side (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTZhZDdiYmJlNDViYTAwOWExNmUyMmQ5ODlmMWYwYTU=) of the immigration/minimum wage debate emerging:


Karl Rove explained the rationale behind the president's amnesty/open-borders proposal this way: "I don't want my 17-year-old son to have to pick tomatoes or make beds in Las Vegas."

Wow, proof positive that the Neo-Cons are Republicans from another dimension. I swear, when taken as a whole 21st century American politics is like some wacky B sci-fi/horror flick from the 50s. I expect that in the not-so-distant future Rove and his merry band of Neo-Cons will one day rip off those clever prosthetic masks thus revealing their ghastly tentatcular visages to the world and proclaim themselves the overlords of our beloved planet of the apes.

Seriously now... Gosh Karl, heaven forbid we encourage the growth of new technologies that would curtail or completely eliminate the demand for unskilled agricultural labor. But hey, anything to allay the fears of your little prince and keep his mandarin hands silky smooth and callous free.

[Crazed Rabbit]

According to the Employment Policies institute, minimum wage hikes most negatively effect minorities and the unskilled - the groups alledgedly supposed to be helped by this:

http://www.epionline.org/studies/Neumark_2007.pdf

Of course, Dems are never people to let facts mess up their legislation.

Crazed Rabbit

[Pindar]

The very idea of a minimum wage is a repugnancy.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Boy, you sure talk purty....


Repugnancy? Love it. :laugh4:

As far as I'm concerned it's nothing but baksheesh, well fig-leafed.

[Pindar]

Boy, you sure talk purty....


Repugnancy? Love it. :laugh4:

As far as I'm concerned it's nothing but baksheesh, well fig-leafed.

Thanks Luv, I've been doin some schoolin.

God save us from the death embrace of the nanny state! :ballchain: