Minimum Wage

[Duke of Gloucester]

Raise the wage, and prices will just go up, thus consequently reducing the value of the increase to right where it was

Obviously increasing wages will cause upward pressure on prices, but to say that the value of the increase would be "right where it was" assumes that the only cost of production is the wage cost and that consumption is restricted to items produced by minimum-wage workers. In short inflation will be higher than it would otherwise have been, but not enough to eliminate the benefit to those on the minimum wage.

Capitalist society rewards those who contribute the most, and rightly so since it inspires most to achieve greater means for themselves.

Capitalist society does no such thing. It rewards those who can command the highest pay. Whether these are those who contribute the most or not is contentious to say the least. Who contributes more to society: a nurse or a management consultant? According to the above description of capitalism, the management consultant does. I disagree.

The fact is, minimum wage jobs are not meant to be lived on.

If this is the case, they are only intended for the very young who might be expected to live at home, or they are immoral. Why should you offer a job at less than the money someone needs to support themselves?

A minimum wage is essential in any state that has social security support. If not, employers will offer low wages and expect the state to make up the difference between the pay and an acceptable income. In this way, taxpayers are subsidising employers. This is not a new problem. Follow the link for an 18th century example of this happening:

Speenhamland system (wikipedia)

[Tribesman]

Wage inflation directly contributes to product price inflation.

Chicken and egg Divinus , since price inflation directly contributes to wage inflation .

[lancelot]

Regardless of fiscal considerations I would suggest that there is a moral need for a decent minimum wage, if for no other reason than to stop the owners of large companies from taking the piss even more than they do now.

If anything workers rights have taken a nose dive in the last 10 years... How many people do you know that voluntarily have to be in work 30mins earlier than their official start time (unpaid of course) because its the done thing or something like that?

The last job I applied for I was expected to work 30mins later than stated every day; and work some saturdays for regular wage (no overtime- which is increasingly a thing of the past these days) and work weekends near the holidays and for all that they said I would be able to leave 10 mins or so early 'ocasionally'

The point is I had to agree to this farce just to get the job and thats how they do it...these days you have to voulunteer to be treated like a jerk!...otherwise they find someone else....all the while with a smile on my face, acting like I was grateful for this privelige they were offering me...

[rory_20_uk]

And to protect the economy we then have tarrifs. Look at the EU: running scared (and rightly so) from the threat of the Chinese. They earn what? £1 an hour in some cases. How can workers here compete on over 4 times that salary? The only way is to include a massive price hike when the goods come over here, or just say the goods aren't welcome.

Some people are stupid. Sad but true. Join the police (you have to be VERY stupid for them not to take you), or perhaps the Army - there are options out there.

Sure they have fewer than many of us. But I'll never be a pilot. My eyesight is too poor. That is my genes. I can't sue god, so I get on with it.

[Ser Clegane]

A word of advice to everybody:

Tune down a little bit - about half of the posters here use a very broad brush to make statements that could be considered quite offensive (and reek of almost unbelievable arrogance):

Gay. The milatary is not just a 2 million dollar loan. I doubt its even that much the milatary is a decsion that takes away years of your life and within itslef dosent pay that great. So stop making wild accusations and go back to the sandbox

And as for the community college- bull****

And you can't freakin spell you hick,

Or something for very little. So every person who works a turd job should be given a "living wage" just because they breathe and trudge to their worthless job every day? Those who are unskilled are replaceable.

Some people are stupid. Sad but true. Join the police (you have to be VERY stupid for them not to take you), or perhaps the Army - there are options out there.

The next post of this "quality" will lead to and a "present" for the poster

[rory_20_uk]

In the UK there was a recent outcry that to be accepted by the police required LESS than the attainment required for 5Cs at GCSE. Considering that applicants are several years older and still unable to perform at this low level IMO makes them "stupid". Therefore the police is a suitable career.

The Army "In general, there are no specific requirements for GCSE or A Level passes" Again, I submit to you that someone who is "stupid" can still find employment in the Army.

If the demographics of the population's IQ is plotted, there will be some who are extremely low. Stupidity is a term for people of low IQ. People will low IQ have always been present, and I find that this is a fact, as well as an unfortunate one. Hence "sad but true".

My strokes with the brush were broad, but so was the topic. I hope that the evidence above can show that my comments were applicable to the situation.

[Ser Clegane]

Considering that applicants are several years older and still unable to perform at this low level IMO makes them "stupid". Therefore the police is a suitable career.

So people who do not meet certain intellectual standards are are now called "stupid"? What's next? "village idiot"?
I guess some people here will again bemoan a perceived excess of political correctness - I doubt however, that those who you chose to call "stupid" will share this sentiment.

The use of the trem "stupid" in this context indeed reeks of arrogance and is - IMHO - not acceptable.

[_Martyr_]

In fairness to Rory, I dont think he meant Stupid in a bad sense, if you check the dictionary the first definition for Stupid is " Slow to learn or understand; obtuse." To be honest, if someone cannot achieve C's in an accademic test set for children a few years younger than the minimum age recuirement for the armed forces, then they ARE infact slow to learn... No? Thats not meant in a derogatory manner.

[rory_20_uk]

Fair enough, I can accept your view. Personally I feel the need to find ever more cringingly worded terms to point out something is as you state PC gone mad.

Village Idiot is a specific person in a village. Therefore it can not rightly be used to refer to a group of people.

The term "does not meet certain intellectual standards" is vague to the point it is meaningless, as well as being very longwinded.

Is "intellectually below average" allowed, or is that arrogant as well? Come to think of it, what context would you allow the term "stupid" to be allowed?

IMO, terms are sanitised until finally all meaning has been sucked out of them.

No person likes to have a negative term placed upon themselves. All of us have failings and faults. I fail to see why we should studiously avoid some and yet at the same time be allowed to imply others are arrogant - surely people being referred to as arrogant don't like that either.

[Divinus Arma]

All you socialists are the same. You want something for nothing. Or something for very little. So every person who works a turd job should be given a "living wage" just because they breathe and trudge to their worthless job every day? Those who are unskilled are replaceable. We naturally place a value on skill. Maybe all of these unskilled workers should combine their meager resources and live under the same roof. What is a "living wage"? Entitlement to a vehicle? A single family home? Give me a break. If all you can do is clean toilets, then you are of little consequence to the workings of the societal machine. I agree with Redleg, that there must be some minimum, but the rest of these arguments are silly.

Yes, Capitalism does reward those that society values most. Should a Doctor be pauid the same as a janitor? No. And if this were the case, we would have less Doctors. There must be an incentive to work hard. Performance must be linked to rewards. If anything, society's values are screwed up. Teachers make very little in the U.S., for example. That is a shame. Many cops and firefighters are underpaid. (Nurses, btw, do quite well in this country since there is a shortage of skilled and trained nurses. See an opportunity here, those who would whine? Supply and demand. Low supply equals higher prices.)



Here is an idea. Let's just establish a base government pay rate for everybody, regardless if they work. Those who choose not to work we'll simply call artists. Anybody who chooses to work will be taxed at 80%, so they can keep 20% of what they make as an incentive to work. That way, everyone gets "their fair share" for having been spit out screaming into a pile of blood and placenta. /sarcasm