NationStates Jolt Archive


The Minimum Wage Has Got to Go Up

Pages : [1] 2
The Nazz
14-12-2005, 22:29
Why? Because according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, there is no place in the US where a person working full-time for minimum wage can pay fair-market price for a one-bedroom apartment. (http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/13977836p-14811697c.html)
"There is a huge pent-up demand" for affordable housing, said Sheila Crowley, president and CEO of the National Low Income Housing Coalition.

This year, for the first time in the 16 years the coalition has published "Out of Reach," it determined that there is no place in the country where a full-time worker earning minimum wage can afford to rent even a one-bedroom apartment at fair market rent.

A minimum wage worker in Sacramento would have to work 115 hours a week to cover rent for a two-bedroom apartment and other bills, the report said.

The report shows that this year's national housing wage - the hourly wage a full-time worker needs to earn in order to cover the rent with no more than 30 percent of his or her income - is $15.78 an hour.The federal minimum wage is $5.15 an hour. Some states, like California, and cities, like San Francisco, have a higher minimum wage--California's is $6.75 and San Francisco's is $8.62--but even that's not enough to rent a one-bedroom apartment.

Part of the problem is skyrocketing home prices. Here in south Florida, there are stories of Palm Beach county firefighters renting rooms--not apartments, rooms--because they can't afford to live in their districts.

But when the situation has gotten so bad that you can't afford a one-bedroom apartment even when you live in Bumfuck, Arkansas if you only make minimum wage, something is terribly wrong with the system. We've got to raise the minimum wage.
Drunk commies deleted
14-12-2005, 22:31
Swap the minimum wage for a living wage. A salary that will cover all the essentials, like food, clothing, and shelter. Subsidize it through taxation for small businesses who can't afford to pay it and stay in business.
Cluichstan
14-12-2005, 22:38
Yeah, so we can force businesses to lay people off or raise prices for their goods/services. Brilliant... :rolleyes:
Teh_pantless_hero
14-12-2005, 22:42
Yeah, so we can force businesses to lay people off or raise prices for their goods/services. Brilliant... :rolleyes:
If they lower prices, more people will buy shit there. But of course, people will piss and moan and raise prices.
The Nazz
14-12-2005, 22:43
Yeah, so we can force businesses to lay people off or raise prices for their goods/services. Brilliant... :rolleyes:
Except that that never happens. Every time the minimum wage goes up, we hear this horror story about layoffs and spiraling inflation--but it never happens. If anything, the economy gets a little bump because the people who have to spend every penny they earn just to stay alive have a little more money to spend.
Frangland
14-12-2005, 22:43
Swap the minimum wage for a living wage. A salary that will cover all the essentials, like food, clothing, and shelter. Subsidize it through taxation for small businesses who can't afford to pay it and stay in business.


...and who's going to pay for it?
5iam
14-12-2005, 22:44
If they lower prices, more people will buy shit there. But of course, people will piss and moan and raise prices.
Ya, because people in business now don't want to make money. :rolleyes:
Gymoor II The Return
14-12-2005, 22:44
Yeah, so we can force businesses to lay people off or raise prices for their goods/services. Brilliant... :rolleyes:

Well, if the minimum wage goes up, more customers will be able to afford their goods/services which means better revenue.

Also, those same businesses, big and small, seem to have no problem raising what they pay their higher-end employees, and a much smaller percentage of a company's costs go towards minimum wage workers than all other workers.

But going ahead and keep parroting your over-simplified Republican-speke.
Syniks
14-12-2005, 22:46
Except that that never happens. Every time the minimum wage goes up, we hear this horror story about layoffs and spiraling inflation--but it never happens. If anything, the economy gets a little bump because the people who have to spend every penny they earn just to stay alive have a little more money to spend.
And all the union wages indextd to the minimum wage go up that much more. But you know, I agree with you. I really hate seeing teenagers in the labor force anyway. I'd much rather have adults needing to pay rent working for "minimum wage" than a bunch of Bling-Obsessed teens living with the 'rents anyway.

What, that wasn't what you had in mind?
Sumamba Buwhan
14-12-2005, 22:47
I'd be willing to pay a bit more taxes to help bring the minimum wage up. I barely survive myself but I am a lot better off than those who can't afford a decent place to live. It's about community in my eyes, not "screw everyone else, it's all about me"
Frangland
14-12-2005, 22:48
Except that that never happens. Every time the minimum wage goes up, we hear this horror story about layoffs and spiraling inflation--but it never happens. If anything, the economy gets a little bump because the people who have to spend every penny they earn just to stay alive have a little more money to spend.

forcing businesses to raise minimum wages springs several logical problems:

1)It hurts entrepreneurialism, taking even more decision-making power away from the ones who are responsible for starting the businesses.

2)Someone has to pay for this... so you tax the rich, which means they have less money to invest, which means people get laid off at the companies they used to invest in, which means that while those who can keep their jobs get higher wages, THERE ARE FEWER JOBS.

Those are two problems... I've got Vh-1 radio in my ears and hard work on my screen (when i click back on my systems broswers that is... hehe), so this'll have to do it for now.
5iam
14-12-2005, 22:48
Well, if the minimum wage goes up, more customers will be able to afford their goods/services which means better revenue.

Also, those same businesses, big and small, seem to have no problem raising what they pay their higher-end employees, and a much smaller percentage of a company's costs go towards minimum wage workers than all other workers.

But going ahead and keep parroting your over-simplified Republican-speke.
Who's oversimplifying now?
The Capitalist Vikings
14-12-2005, 22:48
Except that that never happens. Every time the minimum wage goes up, we hear this horror story about layoffs and spiraling inflation--but it never happens. If anything, the economy gets a little bump because the people who have to spend every penny they earn just to stay alive have a little more money to spend.

There is a direct correlation to the increase in minimum wage and unemployement. South Africa, with one of the highest minimum wages in the world suffers from 30-40% unemployement given the area. Minimum wage laws causes a deadweight loss in society for those people that would be willing to work for less but legally cannot. Furthermore it affects teenagers and minorities disproportionately because they are more likely to be unskilled and therefore layed off. So, in a sense it is a discriminatory measure.

...and who's going to pay for it?

Indeed. The very low class, struggling middle class and small business owners the "living wage" proponents say they are helping will pay some of this burden, further stratifying the wage gap in society.
Blauschild
14-12-2005, 22:48
Except that that never happens. Every time the minimum wage goes up, we hear this horror story about layoffs and spiraling inflation--but it never happens. If anything, the economy gets a little bump because the people who have to spend every penny they earn just to stay alive have a little more money to spend.

Oh really? I just got laid off today precisely because the minimum wage in California is too high. Company is shipping the operation to... Costa Rica. Wonderful. Something about how they pay us $6.75 and hour plus $2 for the first up sell, $4 for the second and $2.50 for the third. Meanwhile in Costa Rica they will be paying them $4/hour and 30 cents for the first up sell, 50 cents for the second and 30 cents for the third. Nice eh? (Sales based job btw, hence the commissions.)
Gymoor II The Return
14-12-2005, 22:51
Who's oversimplefying now?

Certainly less simple the the original cry of "it'll cause layoffs!" which, of course, history shows us doesn't really happen anyway.
Blauschild
14-12-2005, 22:51
Well, if the minimum wage goes up, more customers will be able to afford their goods/services which means better revenue.

Uhhhhh. Yeah. Minimum wage goes up. Costs go up. Prices go up. Net change in buying power by increasing minimum wage? not much. Other than that some people get layed off.

Also, those same businesses, big and small, seem to have no problem raising what they pay their higher-end employees, and a much smaller percentage of a company's costs go towards minimum wage workers than all other workers.

Uh.... right. Why don't you present some evidence for that. Rather than just pulling bullshit out of your ass eh?
[NS:::]Elgesh
14-12-2005, 22:53
Yeah, so we can force businesses to lay people off or raise prices for their goods/services. Brilliant... :rolleyes:

Well, I guess my point is similar to this...

Not everyone works fulltime, or is the only wageearner, or lives one their own. I know folk who do, and they'd need a minimum wage that allows them to _live_ for god's sake.

Equally, a lot of folk I know (uni students and semi-retirees, or a half of a couple) work part time for extra money coming into a household; they don't need the minimum wage to rise.

You can't have a different minimum wage based on one's situation, though - Ms. X will want the same pay as Mr.Y for doing the same work, regardless of their situations!

So what's the answer? Overpay some, underpay others with a one-size-doesn't-really-fit-all-at-all minimum wage? Introduce differential minimum wages anyway, despite the huge outcry you'd get? Or have a low minimum wage for everone, but have the government guarantee a top-up to wages - based on situation, and requiring the individual to be emplyed full-time (40 hours a week?) - designed to ensure that an individual living alone has enough money coming in to afford a basic standard of living (rent in their area, food in their area)?

None of them are exactly ideal solutions, but they serve as a test of 'what-you-think-the-state's-for', as well as being suggested solutions to the Nazz's stated problem...
The Capitalist Vikings
14-12-2005, 22:53
Well, if the minimum wage goes up, more customers will be able to afford their goods/services which means better revenue.

Unless you are unemployed as a result of a higher minimum wage law. Then you are starving and on the street. The few that do get to keep their jobs at the very minimum wage benefit at the expense of others. Like all government measures, the minimum wage law is selective in its benefits.

Oh really? I just got laid off today precisely because the minimum wage in California is too high. Company is shipping the operation to... Costa Rica. Wonderful. Something about how they pay us $6.75 and hour plus $2 for the first up sell, $4 for the second and $2.50 for the third. Meanwhile in Costa Rica they will be paying them $4/hour and 30 cents for the first up sell, 50 cents for the second and 30 cents for the third. Nice eh? (Sales based job btw, hence the commissions.)

I am deeply sorry that you were layed off. Your story further illustrates my point that minimum wage laws cause unemployement AND outsourcing. So, if people are against outsourcing then, they should be against the minimum wage laws as well.
Melkor Unchained
14-12-2005, 22:53
Yeah, great idea. Raise the minimum wage and then complain again when the unemployment rate goes up.

Seriously though, a minimum wage increase will mean that the government will get more money [as a result of the already despicable practice of the income tax], and as such will become even more bloated and overbearing than it already is. I frequently hear people whine about Republican 'totalitarianism,' while turning around and in the next breath demanding that we give these crooks more money by increasing the minimum wage.

If you want people to afford low-cost housing on a full-time, minimum wage job, the solution here is to cut the goddamn taxes and leave the wages precisely where they are, or [gasp!] lower them, since it will create more jobs. If we keep raising the minimum wage like we have been doing for the last 50 years, it will soon reach the point where you'll need a college diploma to work the register at Wendy's [yes, it's a hyperbole]. Is that really how you plan on helping unskilled laborers?
Blauschild
14-12-2005, 22:53
Certainly less simple the the original cry of "it'll cause layoffs!" which, of course, history shows us doesn't really happen anyway.

For the love of god take some at least lower-division economics courses, get an A and come back.
Gymoor II The Return
14-12-2005, 22:55
Oh really? I just got laid off today precisely because the minimum wage in California is too high. Company is shipping the operation to... Costa Rica. Wonderful. Something about how they pay us $6.75 and hour plus $2 for the first up sell, $4 for the second and $2.50 for the third. Meanwhile in Costa Rica they will be paying them $4/hour and 30 cents for the first up sell, 50 cents for the second and 30 cents for the third. Nice eh? (Sales based job btw, hence the commissions.)

Yes, and child labor laws caused hardship to some companies too. Let's get rid of them as well.
People without names
14-12-2005, 22:55
Part of the problem is skyrocketing home prices.

agreed, and something you left out, is this homes they are charging more and more for, are being made with less and less.

in other words, the materials they use to build homes now are crap. take a look at any construction area. take a good hard look at the materials they are using.
Gymoor II The Return
14-12-2005, 22:56
For the love of god take some at least lower-division economics courses, get an A and come back.

I did. Enough to know that there is something out there other than "supply."
The Lordship of Sauron
14-12-2005, 22:57
I've been plenty of places within my homestate of Kansas, and really haven't ever seen out of-this-world housing costs.

My brother rents a 3-bedroom, 2 bathroom apartment for $800 a month - if that's not affordable, I don't know what is - and this is in the capitol city.

I live in (one of the) the more rural areas of Kansas, and pay exactly $300 for a 2-bedroom, 1-bath duplex.

Not that I don't think housing costs are crazy - whenever we visit my wife's family (in New England) it's insane to see the Cost of Living - but the part of the article that says, "there is no place in the country where a full-time worker earning minimum wage can afford to rent even a one-bedroom apartment at fair market rent" seems to be a LITTLE out of proportion.
Nikitas
14-12-2005, 22:57
Oh really? I just got laid off today precisely because the minimum wage in California is too high. Company is shipping the operation to... Costa Rica. Wonderful. Something about how they pay us $6.75 and hour plus $2 for the first up sell, $4 for the second and $2.50 for the third. Meanwhile in Costa Rica they will be paying them $4/hour and 30 cents for the first up sell, 50 cents for the second and 30 cents for the third. Nice eh? (Sales based job btw, hence the commissions.)

So are you going to scratch out a living in the states for $4 an hour? Good luck if you think you can.
Sumamba Buwhan
14-12-2005, 22:58
Those of you completely against raising the minimum wage:

- Do you think that instituting a minimum wage was a bad idea in the first place? Why?

- Instead of just being angry and insulting... What other options can you come up with to get more money into the hands of our countries poorest workers? Or... What do you suggest be done to make things more affordable for everyone?
The Capitalist Vikings
14-12-2005, 22:59
I'd be willing to pay a bit more taxes to help bring the minimum wage up. I barely survive myself but I am a lot better off than those who can't afford a decent place to live. It's about community in my eyes, not "screw everyone else, it's all about me"

Wow. Congratulations, you succeeded in making yourself look like an ass. Us heartless capitalists just want everything for ourselves, is that it? Open your eyes and realize that the minimum wage laws aren't just a "yay everyone gets more money" situation; there are serious problems. If you read through the thread before making an unwarranted attack, you would realize that.
Nikitas
14-12-2005, 22:59
If you want people to afford low-cost housing on a full-time, minimum wage job, the solution here is to cut the goddamn taxes and leave the wages precisely where they are, or [gasp!] lower them, since it will create more jobs. If we keep raising the minimum wage like we have been doing for the last 50 years, it will soon reach the point where you'll need a college diploma to work the register at Wendy's [yes, it's a hyperbole]. Is that really how you plan on helping unskilled laborers?

Do people who earn minimum wage even pay a significant amount of income tax after refunds?
Melkor Unchained
14-12-2005, 23:00
I'd like to know where some of you are getting the impression that a wage increase has no effect on the presence of jobs in this country. Historically, jobs have been cut each and every time a minimum wage increase has been enacted. Without fail.

Do you really think companies outsource jobs or look into things like mechanization just because they feel like it? Like everything else a company does, such decisions are primarily a factor of the net cost involved to them; if it suddenly becomes cheaper to use machines or Costa Ricans they will do it. If it's cheaper and more effective to use American labor, they'll do that instead.
Blauschild
14-12-2005, 23:00
So are you going to scratch out a living in the states for $4 an hour? Good luck if you think you can.

Assuming my only income was that job I'd certainly be better off geting paid $4 an hour than $0 an hour no?
Melkor Unchained
14-12-2005, 23:01
Do people who earn minimum wage even pay a significant amount of income tax after refunds?
God knows I do. I've filed three returns now and have never gotten more than $100 back. Hell, one time they even said I owed them money, which is goddamn ridiculous because I was making $5.65 at the time.
Syniks
14-12-2005, 23:02
Yeah, great idea. Raise the minimum wage and then complain again when the unemployment rate goes up.

Seriously though, a minimum wage increase will mean that the government will get more money [as a result of the already despicable practice of the income tax], and as such will become even more bloated and overbearing than it already is. I frequently hear people whine about Republican 'totalitarianism,' while turning around and in the next breath demanding that we give these crooks more money by increasing the minimum wage.

If you want people to afford low-cost housing on a full-time, minimum wage job, the solution here is to cut the goddamn taxes and leave the wages precisely where they are, or [gasp!] lower them, since it will create more jobs. If we keep raising the minimum wage like we have been doing for the last 50 years, it will soon reach the point where you'll need a college diploma to work the register at Wendy's [yes, it's a hyperbole]. Is that really how you plan on helping unskilled laborers?
Hush, you evil Mod. How dare you make sense! ;)
Nikitas
14-12-2005, 23:02
Assuming my only income was that job I'd certainly be better off geting paid $4 an hour than $0 an hour no?

If an industry can only support you at $4 an hour and you can't make a living off of that then you can't work in that industry. $4, though it isn't zero, may as well be zero because that $4 isn't going to get you by. The real answer is to get another job that can support you at a living wage.
Sumamba Buwhan
14-12-2005, 23:02
If you want people to afford low-cost housing on a full-time, minimum wage job, the solution here is to cut the goddamn taxes and leave the wages precisely where they are, or [gasp!] lower them, since it will create more jobs.


I could go for that. ALso lower many of the salaries paid to our politicians.
Blauschild
14-12-2005, 23:02
Do people who earn minimum wage even pay a significant amount of income tax after refunds?

No, in fact they likely get more from the government than they pay out.
Melkor Unchained
14-12-2005, 23:05
I could go for that. ALso lower many of the salaries paid to our politicians.
Agreed. It never ceases to amaze me how much we pay these douchebags to steal my money and pervert my freedoms.
The Capitalist Vikings
14-12-2005, 23:05
Those of you completely against raising the minimum wage:

- Do you think that instituting a minimum wage was a bad idea in the first place? Why?

- Instead of just being angry and insulting... What other options can you come up with to get more money into the hands of our countries poorest workers? Or... What do you suggest be done to make things more affordable for everyone?

1. Yes the minimum wage was a horrible idea in the first place.

2. Besides the plethora of ideas mentioned thus far in the thread: CUT TAXES; put more money in people's pockets so they can decide what they want to do with the money, not the government. Furthermore, eliminate or drastically reduce wealth redistributing programs because they discourage businesses from hiring more workers, they cause a lack of innovation, and enable SOME (not all) people to not find work and live off of welfare. Finally, eliminate most regulation on business, so that that maximum amount of people can have jobs and therefore have a chance at making it in this world. That's what can be done.

I ask you, does the government know what an individual needs more than the individual? I think most people think the individual knows whats best for him/her and therefore should be morally entitled to the product of his/her labor. Eliminating the sales and income taxes would go a long way to solving the long-term issues of poverty.
Nikitas
14-12-2005, 23:05
God knows I do. I've filed three returns now and have never gotten more than $100 back. Hell, one time they even said I owed them money, which is goddamn ridiculous because I was making $5.65 at the time.

Well, I've earned more than min wage and never paid much in taxes, after refunds of course. But then again I probably work far fewer hours than you do/have.

If raising the minimum wage will give more revenue to the government then that may be a problem, I can see your argument there. But I guess we dont' know for sure.

No, in fact they likely get more from the government than they pay out.

Well see we just don't know. Any IRS agents in the house?
Melkor Unchained
14-12-2005, 23:07
Do people who earn minimum wage even pay a significant amount of income tax after refunds?
Also, now that I think about it some more, this doesn't make a goddamn bit of difference anyway, on account of the fact that you can't exactly pay the rent wiht a refund check, as you only get it once a year. Living expenses are by definition expenses that are generally required to be paid on the spot. Try telling your grocer sometime that you'll pay for your food in April, and see if he'll give you a line of credit. Try telling your landlord that you'll pay him when your refund comes in.

If you want to help these people, put money in their pockets now instead of four months from now.
Sumamba Buwhan
14-12-2005, 23:07
Wow. Congratulations, you succeeded in making yourself look like an ass. Us heartless capitalists just want everything for ourselves, is that it? Open your eyes and realize that the minimum wage laws aren't just a "yay everyone gets more money" situation; there are serious problems. If you read through the thread before making an unwarranted attack, you would realize that.


Actually I did read the tread, and I'll thank you to watch those ad hominem attacks.

Noone has provided proof one way or another as to the detrimental effects of raising the minimum wage - there have only been statements saying so and statements sayign otherwise.

I was suggesting that if they wre to raise taxes to subsidize small businesses who cant afford to pay a higher minimum wage that I would be willign to help those who are in greater need than I. Gee what an ass I am being.
Blauschild
14-12-2005, 23:07
If an industry can only support you at $4 an hour and you can't make a living off of that then you can't work in that industry. $4, though it isn't zero, may as well be zero because that $4 isn't going to get you by. The real answer is to get another job that can support you at a living wage.

That is infact the real answer. Though I suppose, simply to protect my own dignity, my income varied between $15 and $20 an hour. I was a rather good seller who hit the bonuses quite often. I also only worked 14 hours a week. But hey, I was working for extra cash. Not to support myself.
Myrmidonisia
14-12-2005, 23:11
Why? Because according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, there is no place in the US where a person working full-time for minimum wage can pay fair-market price for a one-bedroom apartment. (http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/13977836p-14811697c.html)
Any adult that is only able to support himself on a minimum wage has missed the opportunity bus. He has frittered his life away to the point where all he can do are menial jobs that are meant for gaining experience.

The minimum wage should abolished and the losers that can't make ends meet with one entry-level job, need to reduce their cost of living, or find a second job.

That felt good. Vitriol is a good way to let off steam.
Jurgencube
14-12-2005, 23:12
Honestly. You've had your free education and your skills are not worth more than $6 to anyone or any company. I say good luck finding yourself a house or feeding your family if you can't even make yourself valuable after being given free education.
Drunk commies deleted
14-12-2005, 23:13
Yeah, so we can force businesses to lay people off or raise prices for their goods/services. Brilliant... :rolleyes:
They're laying people off now in order to outsource. If we made sure that all goods and services sold in the US paid a living wage to the people who made them it would cut down on outsourcing and give the working guy a fair deal. Plus, raising prices isn't necessarily a bad thing. Raising prices in order to make sure that working people don't end up homeless or starve means that although that new plasma TV might have to be put off for another year, you won't have as many young people selling crack just because Burger King won't pay the rent.
Gymoor II The Return
14-12-2005, 23:13
Assuming my only income was that job I'd certainly be better off geting paid $4 an hour than $0 an hour no?

Gee, it's funny. When layoffs happen without a minimum wage increase or when someone complains that they can't live on what they get paid, the conservatives usually say "tough shit, get a better job."

And yet when the same thing happens when a minimum wage increase happens, they all yell "see! Minimum wage is teh suxorz!!!"

So...tough shit. Get a better job.
Drunk commies deleted
14-12-2005, 23:14
...and who's going to pay for it?
Companies who make big profits and wealthy individuals.
Frangland
14-12-2005, 23:14
Unless you are unemployed as a result of a higher minimum wage law. Then you are starving and on the street. The few that do get to keep their jobs at the very minimum wage benefit at the expense of others. Like all government measures, the minimum wage law is selective in its benefits.



I am deeply sorry that you were layed off. Your story further illustrates my point that minimum wage laws cause unemployement AND outsourcing. So, if people are against outsourcing then, they should be against the minimum wage laws as well.

we can thank unions for our outsourcing woes

US labor is among the best in the world, but is very expensive.

it's a tough call -- workers need to be paid fairly, but in some industries there's global competition for labor... and if you're CEO and are answerable to a million stockholders who demand positive/strong ROI and/or dividends paid out, do you employ Americans at the risk of driving up Cost and driving down Income, or do you piss Americans off and cause a big PR stink and ship jobs overseas... perhaps with large start-up and training costs but with way lower labor expense in the long run (and higher income, which leads to more investing and better returns for current investors)?
The Capitalist Vikings
14-12-2005, 23:14
Actually I did read the tread, and I'll thank you to watch those ad hominem attacks.

Noone has provided proof one way or another as to the detrimental effects of raising the minimum wage - there have only been statements saying so and statements sayign otherwise.

I was suggesting that if they wre to raise taxes to subsidize small businesses who cant afford to pay a higher minimum wage that I would be willign to help those who are in greater need than I. Gee what an ass I am being.

I apologize for attacking you. It is not in my nature and I just get easily irratated when people claim that my position against the minimum wage laws is out of selfishness. This may not be what you were implying, but that is how I took it. Again, my apologies. I did not mean to insult you intelligence.

I have provided some stats (see my post about South Africa) pertaining to increased minimum wage laws leading to high amounts of unemployement (and crime might I add).

Your idea to raise taxes and subsidize small business would cause, as people have already mentioned, a cutting in costs or these businesses, thereby allowing the business to run more efficienty with LESS workers. Corporate welfare, tax breaks and other such measures do more harm than good, even though their intent is not so.
Nikitas
14-12-2005, 23:14
Also, now that I think about it some more, this doesn't make a goddamn bit of difference anyway, on account of the fact that you can't exactly pay the rent wiht a refund check, as you only get it once a year. Living expenses are by definition expenses that are generally required to be paid on the spot. Try telling your grocer sometime that you'll pay for your food in April, and see if he'll give you a line of credit. Try telling your landlord that you'll pay him when your refund comes in.

If you want to help these people, put money in their pockets now instead of four months from now.

That's a good point. There are always credit cards, but even if you can get one that would be imposing a 20% APR tax payable to credit companies.

It's strange that min wage employees would be taxed at all.

Besides the plethora of ideas mentioned thus far in the thread: CUT TAXES; put more money in people's pockets so they can decide what they want to do with the money, not the government. Furthermore, eliminate or drastically reduce wealth redistributing programs because they discourage businesses from hiring more workers, they cause a lack of innovation, and enable SOME (not all) people to not find work and live off of welfare. Finally, eliminate most regulation on business, so that that maximum amount of people can have jobs and therefore have a chance at making it in this world. That's what can be done.

Well the issue here is that whatever wage the market is generating isn't adequate to support a certain life style that we have deemed to be the bare minimum. By definition an effective, or relevant, minimum wage is going to be one that is raising the floor on wages. That means that without it the market will not offer an 'acceptable' wage. I doubt cutting taxes, how Keynesian of you, will do much to raise wages.
Frangland
14-12-2005, 23:16
Companies who make big profits and wealthy individuals.

so... socialism

here's the problem with that:

a)The companies you hit will lay people off because of the tax hike... that, or they'll have to raise prices to make up for the higher wages... in which cse people might not get fired, but consumers at large will be hit by higher prices to pay for goods and services. (either is a negative outcome)

b)The rich people you hit will become even more disillusioned with diminishing American free enterprise, which might mean they'll be less likely to go into further business (start companies or help others with start-up costs -- IE, being an angel)... and then there's the part that isn't subjective: their taxes increase, which means that they will not have as much money to invest. As their investment goes down, some companies will suffer from it and will have to lay off people (doubly so if they're the companies already being hit with the tax... now, not only are their taxes increasing, but their equity is also decreasing.

This is in step with what several others have said:

The practical effects are:

a)Those who get to keep their jobs will be paid more, but many will lose jobs because of the new taxes (unemployment increase)

b)Prices will likely increase on goods and services.

If a person isn't making enough money in his current job, he has a choice:

a)Either move to new, cheaper digs

b)Move to a new place where minimum wage can pay the rent

c)Get a new job with higher pay.
Nikitas
14-12-2005, 23:17
US labor is among the best in the world, but is very expensive.

That and because of the relative luxury we can afford here. We are suffering the consequences of our economic success.
Amsterdama
14-12-2005, 23:18
What I would like to see is anytime Congress or the President start bitching they want a raise, Minimum wage earners get the same percentage raise as these fat cats.
The Capitalist Vikings
14-12-2005, 23:19
I doubt cutting taxes, how Keynesian of you, will do much to raise wages.

I am not a Keynesian, and what I am advocating is just the opposite of Keynesianism. So, I don't know where you got that from.

The main point is that wages do not neccessarily need to be higher, because higher wages does not equal more money. The key is for the government to not take any money from the wages people currently make. That way the minimum wage can actually be lowered, creating more jobs, and since people keep 100% of that wage then they will be better off.
Jurgencube
14-12-2005, 23:20
It's strange that min wage employees would be taxed at all.
.
Don't know about America but first 4000 or 6000 is untaxed in England.


Well the issue here is that whatever wage the market is generating isn't adequate to support a certain life style that we have deemed to be the bare minimum. By definition an effective, or relevant, minimum wage is going to be one that is raising the floor on wages. That means that without it the market will not offer an 'acceptable' wage. I doubt cutting taxes, how Keynesian of you, will do much to raise wages.

A little thing called incentive. If we make it perfectly possible to live without needing to have any skills people will live without having any skills.
Melkor Unchained
14-12-2005, 23:20
They're laying people off now in order to outsource.
Ever stopped to think about why they're doing this? They're doing it because the countries that have the labor they're looking for don't have the restrictions we do. American labor is a joke in most industries because it's horrifically expensive and not particularly efficient for the cost. If they can find labor overseas that is better and cheaper, you can bet your sweet ass they'll go for it. I'm not saying this is necessarily a good thing for us; it definately has some adverse effects to the economy which need to be considered. If your solution to outsourcing is to make American labor more expensive, you are quite clearly out of your mind.

If we made sure that all goods and services sold in the US paid a living wage to the people who made them it would cut down on outsourcing and give the working guy a fair deal.
Really? How? I'd love to hear this. You propose to put an end to outsourcing by introducing more of the restrictions that made outsourcing an appealing option in the first place?

Plus, raising prices isn't necessarily a bad thing. Raising prices in order to make sure that working people don't end up homeless or starve means that although that new plasma TV might have to be put off for another year, you won't have as many young people selling crack just because Burger King won't pay the rent.
Raising prices is a bad thing economically because it means fewer people will be buying these products. If a candy bar suddenly costs $2 at the checkout line, Hershey's will make more cuts because fewer people are buying their product. Raising one's wage does not increase the objective value of money.
Jurgencube
14-12-2005, 23:24
What I would like to see is anytime Congress or the President start bitching they want a raise, Minimum wage earners get the same percentage raise as these fat cats.

Yeah congress only got good uni educations, run your country and economy making sure you have jobs avalible, protect you work long hard hours. They do something to earn it, minimum wagers basically struggle to keep their job as it is. Sad truth is if you raise the minimum wage some companys wont actually think its worth it to keep some of the guys they are that worthless.
Frangland
14-12-2005, 23:25
What I would like to see is anytime Congress or the President start bitching they want a raise, Minimum wage earners get the same percentage raise as these fat cats.

I'm much more concerned with professional athletes' salaries... many of whom make at least ten times as much per year as the president.
Ravenshrike
14-12-2005, 23:26
I could go for that. ALso lower many of the salaries paid to our politicians.
Of course, given that being a normal senator/representative was originally supposed to be a sideline job.
Frangland
14-12-2005, 23:26
Ever stopped to think about why they're doing this? They're doing it because the countries that have the labor they're looking for don't have the restrictions we do. American labor is a joke in most industries because it's horrifically expensive and not particularly efficient for the cost. If they can find labor overseas that is better and cheaper, you can bet your sweet ass they'll go for it. I'm not saying this is necessarily a good thing for us; it definately has some adverse effects to the economy which need to be considered. If your solution to outsourcing is to make American labor more expensive, you are quite clearly out of your mind.


Really? How? I'd love to hear this. You propose to put an end to outsourcing by introducing more of the restrictions that made outsourcing an appealing option in the first place?


Raising prices is a bad thing economically because it means fewer people will be buying these products. If a candy bar suddenly costs $2 at the checkout line, Hershey's will make more cuts because fewer people are buying their product. Raising one's wage does not increase the objective value of money.

boiled down:

socialism weakens economies

hehe
Nikitas
14-12-2005, 23:26
I am not a Keynesian, and what I am advocating is just the opposite of Keynesianism. So, I don't know where you got that from.

Cutting taxes is most closely associated with "demand side" economic stimulation, that is to say Keynesian economics.

I know you weren't refering to that, and I figured you weren't a Keynesian, but its a joke.

ha ha

The main point is that wages do not neccessarily need to be higher, because higher wages does not equal more money. The key is for the government to not take any money from the wages people currently make. That way the minimum wage can actually be lowered, creating more jobs, and since people keep 100% of that wage then they will be better off.

But that goes back to taxation again. If the problem is taxation and not the market wage then obviously we have a problem with the government that can be easily remedied (easy in the relative sense, not easy in the realistic polical sense). If it's a problem with the market wage then I doubt economic stimulation is going to improve the situation much.

A little thing called incentive. If we make it perfectly possible to live without needing to have any skills people will live without having any skills.

That's an argument best saved for discussions on welfare, this is about the minimum wage. It's safe to presume that those receiving 'aid' are at least working. Maybe not in the most efficient capacity, but at least they are working.
Drunk commies deleted
14-12-2005, 23:27
forcing businesses to raise minimum wages springs several logical problems:

1)It hurts entrepreneurialism, taking even more decision-making power away from the ones who are responsible for starting the businesses.

2)Someone has to pay for this... so you tax the rich, which means they have less money to invest, which means people get laid off at the companies they used to invest in, which means that while those who can keep their jobs get higher wages, THERE ARE FEWER JOBS.

Those are two problems... I've got Vh-1 radio in my ears and hard work on my screen (when i click back on my systems broswers that is... hehe), so this'll have to do it for now.
1) Nobody will pass up a chance to make 10% profits just because without taxes they'd be able to make 20% profits. Wages for small businesses would be subsidized under my plan, which means it's actually easier to start a small business and attract qualified people to work for you.

2) Are you kidding me? The rich are paying less in taxes than they have in a long time. It's still not slowing the pace of outsourcing. New jobs being produced don't replace the manufacturing jobs we've lost because they don't pay as much. In the 1970s California textile workers made as much as $20 per hour indexed to today's inflation. Those jobs are gone. Two thirds of them have gone overseas since the 80's, and the rest have seen real earnings decrease to an obscene degree.

http://www.theworld.org/latesteditions/12/20051212.shtml
click the link for "World trade organization report"
Pythagosaurus
14-12-2005, 23:27
The best thing we can do is teach people what they don't need. I live in a 900 sq. ft. apartment with one other person for less than $5,000 per year, taxes and bills included. If I was sharing my residence with more people, it would be even cheaper. Now, do the math. $5,000/year / (40 hours/week * 52 weeks/year) < $2.50/hour.
Frangland
14-12-2005, 23:28
Yeah congress only got good uni educations, run your country and economy making sure you have jobs avalible, protect you work long hard hours. They do something to earn it, minimum wagers basically struggle to keep their job as it is. Sad truth is if you raise the minimum wage some companys wont actually think its worth it to keep some of the guys they are that worthless.

It is not the US Government's job to run the US economy...
Jurgencube
14-12-2005, 23:28
I'm much more concerned with professional athletes' salaries... many of whom make at least ten times as much per year as the president.

We go/watch those sporting events and give them our money. David Beckham makes real madrid millions thus its fair that he gets paid millions.

I'd take the approach incompetant businessmen who ruin companys but still get huge payouts would be the best people to attack. Most sporting players come from those poor backrounds "you" all want to help so much and provide entertainment we all enjoy.
The Nazz
14-12-2005, 23:29
It is not the US Government's job to run the US economy...
Actually, it is.
Jurgencube
14-12-2005, 23:31
It is not the US Government's job to run the US economy...

Sorry related it to British parliament. But that still doesn't take away the fact the government do a hell of a lot and these are peope I DON'T think are grossly over paid and there are seriously a large number of other people worth attacking on grounds of pay.
Drunk commies deleted
14-12-2005, 23:31
There is a direct correlation to the increase in minimum wage and unemployement. South Africa, with one of the highest minimum wages in the world suffers from 30-40% unemployement given the area. Minimum wage laws causes a deadweight loss in society for those people that would be willing to work for less but legally cannot. Furthermore it affects teenagers and minorities disproportionately because they are more likely to be unskilled and therefore layed off. So, in a sense it is a discriminatory measure.



Indeed. The very low class, struggling middle class and small business owners the "living wage" proponents say they are helping will pay some of this burden, further stratifying the wage gap in society.
Discriminatory? The average teenager doesn't need to earn money to feed his family in the US. That job, paying a living wage, could help keep a poor family fed and healthy. I don't see how it would affect minority workers adversely. Do you think a skilled welder will be competing for a store clerk job with an unskilled worker from the ghetto?

Please explain the second part of your statement. How will the low class, middle class and small business owners suffer? Higher prices? Maybe it will teach us not to max out our credit cards.
Frangland
14-12-2005, 23:32
Actually, it is.

ahh, no

we're not communists, after all.

it's up to businesses, consumers and investors.

(and we should be glad as hell we don't have a controlled/planned economy)

we have the Fed, who helps guard against high inflation and high unemployment

Congress passes tax programs

but thank goodness you and I can still decide how to spend our money (for the most part)
Gymoor II The Return
14-12-2005, 23:32
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwagefaq

n the past, the minimum wage has been limited in its effects on poverty because many poor families did not have any family members in the paid labor force. However, as welfare reform forces more poor families to rely on their earnings from low-paying jobs, a minimum wage increase is likely to have a greater impact on reducing poverty.

A 1998 EPI study failed to find any systematic, significant job loss associated with the 1996-97 minimum wage increase. In fact, following the most recent increase in the minimum wage in 1996-97, the low-wage labor market performed better than it had in decades (e.g., lower unemployment rates, increased average hourly wages, increased family income, decreased poverty rates). Studies of the 1990-91 federal minimum wage increase, as well as to studies by David Card and Alan Krueger of several state minimum wage increases, also found no measurable negative impact on employment. Finally, a recent Fiscal Policy Institute (FPI) study of state minimum wages found no evidence of negative employment effects on small businesses.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_48/b3910096_mz021.htm

But new research over the past decade shows that modest hikes to keep the low-paid abreast of inflation will cost few if any jobs. The point has been widely embraced since 1995 studies by University of California at Berkeley economist David Card and Princeton University economist Alan B. Krueger found no employment losses among New Jersey fast food restaurants hit with minimum-wage hikes. Given wide variations in costs around the country, the federal minimum should serve as a floor, which would allow high-cost states such as California or Alaska to set their own minimums higher if they wish.
Drunk commies deleted
14-12-2005, 23:33
Oh really? I just got laid off today precisely because the minimum wage in California is too high. Company is shipping the operation to... Costa Rica. Wonderful. Something about how they pay us $6.75 and hour plus $2 for the first up sell, $4 for the second and $2.50 for the third. Meanwhile in Costa Rica they will be paying them $4/hour and 30 cents for the first up sell, 50 cents for the second and 30 cents for the third. Nice eh? (Sales based job btw, hence the commissions.)
Maybe you got laid off because free trade advocates make it too easy for foreign workers to be exploited. Maybe if companies producing goods and services sold in the US had to pay a living wage to the workers regardless of the nation of origin your job would still be here.
Sumamba Buwhan
14-12-2005, 23:33
I apologize for attacking you. It is not in my nature and I just get easily irratated when people claim that my position against the minimum wage laws is out of selfishness. This may not be what you were implying, but that is how I took it. Again, my apologies. I did not mean to insult you intelligence.

I have provided some stats (see my post about South Africa) pertaining to increased minimum wage laws leading to high amounts of unemployement (and crime might I add).

Your idea to raise taxes and subsidize small business would cause, as people have already mentioned, a cutting in costs or these businesses, thereby allowing the business to run more efficienty with LESS workers. Corporate welfare, tax breaks and other such measures do more harm than good, even though their intent is not so.

no worries

it wasnt actually my idea to subsidize small business, I just ran with someone elses idea and said if that was the way it was going to be done then I would be willing to help, even if I had to struggle a bit more.

your stat about Africa was compelling but I should I just take what you say at your word? without any kind of study to look at? Perhaps there are other issues that contribute to the high unemployment rate.

I'm not saying you are wrong, I just like to look at things from different angles.

While I was writing posts there was no mention of cutting taxes or ANY other alternative plan, and then Melkor mentioned that idea and I liked that as well.

I am at work and there have probably been a hundred posts by the time I submit this because I am away from my desk constantly.
Jurgencube
14-12-2005, 23:34
ahh, no

we're not communists, after all.

it's up to businesses, consumers and investors.

Of course the governement does not have 100% control of it. But how it taxes businesses/people effects how they respond and thus how the economy develops,
Drunk commies deleted
14-12-2005, 23:36
Yes, and child labor laws caused hardship to some companies too. Let's get rid of them as well.
Yep. Let's scrap OSHA too. Polution regulations? Who needs em. They're a drag on the economy. Hey, you know what would be great for business? Slavery! Man America would be unstoppable economically if we could just get slaves to work the farms and factories. Who can produce goods cheaper than a slave?

Sometimes we regulate capitalism for the benefit of humanity. Living wage is a part of that.
Frangland
14-12-2005, 23:36
Maybe you got laid off because free trade advocates make it too easy for foreign workers to be exploited. Maybe if companies producing goods and services sold in the US had to pay a living wage to the workers regardless of the nation of origin your job would still be here.

...you'd still be pinching US bueinesses, which is never good for the economy/investment opportunities.

and to your previous post, it logically would lead to less investment. a 20% ROI mightbe palatable to some investors while a 10% might not cut it. Not every investor is going to like those apples. And we NEED investors... without them, american businesses are doomed.
Drunk commies deleted
14-12-2005, 23:37
Do people who earn minimum wage even pay a significant amount of income tax after refunds?
Unless they work a shitload of overtime they are below the poverty line and will not pay income tax.
Blauschild
14-12-2005, 23:39
Gee, it's funny. When layoffs happen without a minimum wage increase or when someone complains that they can't live on what they get paid, the conservatives usually say "tough shit, get a better job."

Yep

And yet when the same thing happens when a minimum wage increase happens, they all yell "see! Minimum wage is teh suxorz!!!"

Uh yeah. Your point? Minimum wage is an artificial measure that does indeed cost people their jobs. Conservatives don't like the minimum wage because of that. It drains the economy and prevents growth that would other be occurring.

So...tough shit. Get a better job.

:yawn: your compassion is oh so wonderfully accepted. In actuality while the cost of labor cost me my job, so did the quality of my co-workers. Had everyone been, frankly, as good as I am at selling that particular product I’d still have my job. The problem was that there was enough dead wood who didn’t generate enough sales to justify their minimum wage, let alone cover the over-head of the company.



[quote=The Nazz]Actually, it is.[/quote

Not it most fucking definitely is not. For one thing its not possible for anyone to successfully run an economy. Far to complex. For a second thing the Federal Reserve System, which is the closest thing we have to someone trying run our economy, is technically independent of the government.
Drunk commies deleted
14-12-2005, 23:40
we can thank unions for our outsourcing woes

US labor is among the best in the world, but is very expensive.

it's a tough call -- workers need to be paid fairly, but in some industries there's global competition for labor... and if you're CEO and are answerable to a million stockholders who demand positive/strong ROI and/or dividends paid out, do you employ Americans at the risk of driving up Cost and driving down Income, or do you piss Americans off and cause a big PR stink and ship jobs overseas... perhaps with large start-up and training costs but with way lower labor expense in the long run (and higher income, which leads to more investing and better returns for current investors)?
That's why government should regulate capitalism. Make sure that regardless of where they hire workers they pay them a living wage or they don't get to sell their products over here. Levels the playing field a little.
Frangland
14-12-2005, 23:41
Of course the governement does not have 100% control of it. But how it taxes businesses/people effects how they respond and thus how the economy develops,

i suppose you could have a sliding scale of governmental control of any ecvonomy and base it on the level of business regulations and tax levels...

in the case of the united states, i'm fairly sure that our taxes are pretty low and that business is encouraged moreso than in most other countries... in which case, our government is more toward the "low-control" end of the scale. (which necessarily means that we the people are generally in control of our economy)

And then there's the election argument.. hehe... in that if our taxes are raised... we could always blame ourselves for electing those whoo monetarily/proprietarily oppress us.
Lunatic Goofballs
14-12-2005, 23:42
Do people who earn minimum wage even pay a significant amount of income tax after refunds?

No. At $5.15 per hour, 40 hours per week, the average single minimum wage earner without children pays about $291 per year in income taxes. With one child, that would put him out of income taxes entirely.

At $6.00 per hour, it would be $468, or about $168 with one child. Two children would drop that person out of the tax brackets.

That's assuming no other deductions for savings or property taxes.
Sumamba Buwhan
14-12-2005, 23:42
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwagefaq





http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_48/b3910096_mz021.htm


Thanks for that - I was wondering when someone would post a study to support their side of the debate.

For raising minimum wage: 1
Against: 0
Syniks
14-12-2005, 23:42
Yep. Let's scrap OSHA too. Polution regulations? Who needs em. They're a drag on the economy. Hey, you know what would be great for business? Slavery! Man America would be unstoppable economically if we could just get slaves to work the farms and factories. Who can produce goods cheaper than a slave?

Sometimes we regulate capitalism for the benefit of humanity. Living wage is a part of that.
Of course, now that no one can buy a Surfboard blank because of some of those regulations maybe we'll see a little more sense out of the California/Austrailia Sector? Maybe?
Drunk commies deleted
14-12-2005, 23:42
so... socialism

here's the problem with that:

a)The companies you hit will lay people off because of the tax hike... that, or they'll have to raise prices to make up for the higher wages... in which cse people might not get fired, but consumers at large will be hit by higher prices to pay for goods and services. (either is a negative outcome)

b)The rich people you hit will become even more disillusioned with diminishing American free enterprise, which might mean they'll be less likely to go into further business (start companies or help others with start-up costs -- IE, being an angel)... and then there's the part that isn't subjective: their taxes increase, which means that they will not have as much money to invest. As their investment goes down, some companies will suffer from it and will have to lay off people (doubly so if they're the companies already being hit with the tax... now, not only are their taxes increasing, but their equity is also decreasing.

This is in step with what several others have said:

The practical effects are:

a)Those who get to keep their jobs will be paid more, but many will lose jobs because of the new taxes (unemployment increase)

b)Prices will likely increase on goods and services.

If a person isn't making enough money in his current job, he has a choice:

a)Either move to new, cheaper digs

b)Move to a new place where minimum wage can pay the rent

c)Get a new job with higher pay.
There is no place where minimum wage will pay the rent. Cheaper digs would have to be a cardboard box on the street.

A man who works a full time job deserves to earn enough to stay fed, clothed and sheltered. Proper regulation of capitalism could ensure that he does.
Frangland
14-12-2005, 23:43
That's why government should regulate capitalism. Make sure that regardless of where they hire workers they pay them a living wage or they don't get to sell their products over here. Levels the playing field a little.

that'll keep some from starting businesses in the first place.

if we'd started with that plan back in the 1780s (or whatever) and stuck to it, it might have been okay. But it'd be a huge shock to the system to do it now (imo).
Blauschild
14-12-2005, 23:43
Maybe you got laid off because free trade advocates make it too easy for foreign workers to be exploited. Maybe if companies producing goods and services sold in the US had to pay a living wage to the workers regardless of the nation of origin your job would still be here.

Uh no actually. In fact if they had to a pay living wage to everyone they'd be royally screwed. The company was bleeding red and had already engaged in cuts in other areas.
Frangland
14-12-2005, 23:43
There is no place where minimum wage will pay the rent. Cheaper digs would have to be a cardboard box on the street.

A man who works a full time job deserves to earn enough to stay fed, clothed and sheltered. Proper regulation of capitalism could ensure that he does.

...and higher unemployment... more cardboard boxes. hehe
The Capitalist Vikings
14-12-2005, 23:44
Yep. Let's scrap OSHA too. Polution regulations? Who needs em. They're a drag on the economy. Hey, you know what would be great for business? Slavery! Man America would be unstoppable economically if we could just get slaves to work the farms and factories. Who can produce goods cheaper than a slave?

Sometimes we regulate capitalism for the benefit of humanity. Living wage is a part of that.

Pollution regulations are a poor solution to deal with the social cost inflicted upon all of society. A better way would be to tax per unit of pollution so that small and large firms alike can find an economically efficient means of accounting for their pollution, thereby helping the environment AND maintaining market efficiency. In a libertarian society, pollution is considered a negative externality, and therefore a just use of government intrusion in the form of taxation rather than regulation.

Slavery goes against both natural rights, and the rights to own property. Again, in a libertarian society it would be simply unacceptable.

The whole point is, in my opinion the only thing the government should do that involves the economy is to account for externalities. The minimum wage laws are not externalities. Economic regulations are not externalities. Externalities are solved through taxation, like my pollution example.
Frangland
14-12-2005, 23:44
DC, look at the unemployment rates in half-socialist Western Europe... most are up around (at least) 10%.

Moral: The more socialism you introduce, the higher unemployment will be.
Gymoor II The Return
14-12-2005, 23:45
Yep



Uh yeah. Your point? Minimum wage is an artificial measure that does indeed cost people their jobs. Conservatives don't like the minimum wage because of that. It drains the economy and prevents growth that would other be occurring.



Actually, the articles I cited show that there are no significant job losses when minimum wage is raised. So that whole argument is bullshit.
Blauschild
14-12-2005, 23:45
There is no place where minimum wage will pay the rent. Cheaper digs would have to be a cardboard box on the street.

Yeah there are actually.

A man who works a full time job deserves to earn enough to stay fed, clothed and sheltered. Proper regulation of capitalism could ensure that he does.

All you deserve is a chance. Not a guarantee.
Jurgencube
14-12-2005, 23:49
All you deserve is a chance. Not a guarantee.

Perfect.

And agreed lower unemployment is good for the economy thus companys make more money and can pay more. Simply enough.
Nikitas
14-12-2005, 23:51
DC, look at the unemployment rates in half-socialist Western Europe... most are up around (at least) 10%.

Moral: The more socialism you introduce, the higher unemployment will be.

That isn't a causal connection though. It is, at best, a correllary. There may be something there, or it could just be a regional slump.
Drunk commies deleted
14-12-2005, 23:52
<snip>


Really? How? I'd love to hear this. You propose to put an end to outsourcing by introducing more of the restrictions that made outsourcing an appealing option in the first place?


Raising prices is a bad thing economically because it means fewer people will be buying these products. If a candy bar suddenly costs $2 at the checkout line, Hershey's will make more cuts because fewer people are buying their product. Raising one's wage does not increase the objective value of money.
The restrictions would apply to products and services produced by foreign workers too if they want to sell them in the US, the biggest market in the world.

Yes, fewer people will be buying products, but they will still need to buy some items. Clothes, food, housing, some entertainment and lesiure goods will still be sold. The current rate of consumption in the US is unsustainable anyway. People are maxing out their credit cards, taking on mortgage debt and even getting payday loans against their pay check at a staggering rate. Sometimes you need to cool commerce down a bit.
Nikitas
14-12-2005, 23:53
No. At $5.15 per hour, 40 hours per week, the average single minimum wage earner without children pays about $291 per year in income taxes. With one child, that would put him out of income taxes entirely.

At $6.00 per hour, it would be $468, or about $168 with one child. Two children would drop that person out of the tax brackets.

That's assuming no other deductions for savings or property taxes.

I figured it was something like that. Thanks for the numbers.

Did you get that off of a website?
Drunk commies deleted
14-12-2005, 23:53
I'm much more concerned with professional athletes' salaries... many of whom make at least ten times as much per year as the president.
I thought you were a free market capitalist? If someone's willing to pay them that much, what business is it of anybody else's?
MrMopar
14-12-2005, 23:54
I thought minimum wage was $6.45? Nevertheless, I agree it has got to go up. A dollar, at least.

Think of it this way, if people have more money because they get better wages, they can buy more stuff. Their money that they bought more stuff actuslly goes to help our economy by greating a greater demand for making stuff for people to buy. And such, creates more jobs for people to get better wages with. And so on, etc.

In the end, hard-working citizens have more money, corporations sell more products, and more people get to be employed. Its a win-win!
Frangland
14-12-2005, 23:55
That isn't a causal connection though. It is, at best, a correllary. There may be something there, or it could just be a regional slump.

...via the tax increase on larger businesses and the rich...

(why don't we just target Buffett and Gates? Cripes, a one-time donation of $5 billion from them would help. hehe)
Frangland
14-12-2005, 23:56
I thought you were a free market capitalist? If someone's willing to pay them that much, what business is it of anybody else's?

I am. I just wanted to keep heat off the PRez. hehe
Blauschild
14-12-2005, 23:57
I thought minimum wage was $6.45? Nevertheless, I agree it has got to go up. A dollar, at least.

Think of it this way, if people have more money because they get better wages, they can buy more stuff. Their money that they bought more stuff actuslly goes to help our economy by greating a greater demand for making stuff for people to buy. And such, creates more jobs for people to get better wages with. And so on, etc.

In the end, hard-working citizens have more money, corporations sell more products, and more people get to be employed. Its a win-win!

Take an economics course. Such as micro or macro economics. College level.
Laenis
14-12-2005, 23:57
DC, look at the unemployment rates in half-socialist Western Europe... most are up around (at least) 10%.

Moral: The more socialism you introduce, the higher unemployment will be.

Really? How do you explain more-than-half-socialist Sweden having an unemployment rate of 5.4% then?
Drunk commies deleted
14-12-2005, 23:58
It is not the US Government's job to run the US economy...
It's their job to regulate it. Ok, it's not in the constitution, but let me explain. The government exists to balance the rights of one person or group against another. One person's right to do business ends when the harm done by that business outweighs the benefit to the nation. For example, I can't sell hand grenades out of my house. Why? While it might employ hand grenade manufacturers, the harm to the nation by having people blowing each other up outweighs the benefit. Thus government has traditionally regulated the economy for the greater good.
Frangland
14-12-2005, 23:59
Really? How do you explain more-than-half-socialist Sweden having an unemployment rate of 5.4% then?

Volvo and Saab
Drunk commies deleted
14-12-2005, 23:59
...you'd still be pinching US bueinesses, which is never good for the economy/investment opportunities.

and to your previous post, it logically would lead to less investment. a 20% ROI mightbe palatable to some investors while a 10% might not cut it. Not every investor is going to like those apples. And we NEED investors... without them, american businesses are doomed.
So what will he do with his money? Stuff it in a matress where it will make 0% returns?
Frangland
15-12-2005, 00:00
Take an economics course. Such as micro or macro economics. College level.

Yeah

also, Corporate Finance
Myrmidonisia
15-12-2005, 00:00
How significant is the number of people working for minimum wage? Around Atlanta, the entry pay for almost everything is between $7 and $8 an hour. My daughter just got a temp job for Christmas at $8.50.

Nah, scrap the minimum wage. Anyone that has ignored the opportunities to do better than an experience building entry level position needs more help than another dollar or two an hour.
Ogalalla
15-12-2005, 00:01
Those of you completely against raising the minimum wage:

- Do you think that instituting a minimum wage was a bad idea in the first place? Why?

- Instead of just being angry and insulting... What other options can you come up with to get more money into the hands of our countries poorest workers? Or... What do you suggest be done to make things more affordable for everyone?
I think it is reasonable to have a minimum wage, but I think it always needs to be pretty low. I just don't like the idea of the government getting involved in business (unless something obviously criminal is going on). That second question seemed to have a little bias in it. You assume we want to get the poorest workers higher paying jobs. We live in an incentive based environment, where all that you really need to get is infront of you. We have free public education. If you work hard on that you can get scholarships for college, and if that doesn't cover it all you can take out student loans. If you can get a college degree then you can pretty readily get a higher paying job (than minimum wage). That is the course that is pretty standard for people who want to make more money throughout their lives. That is the incentive for working hard at school when you are younger. But a lot of people pass up those oppurtunities for one reason or another. That often will cause them to have to start out at the lower end of the job pool. But sense these are all due to decisions you have made in your life, you are the person who gets to decide if you are going to be making $6 an hour or $25 an hour. The people who currently get paid less generally just missed the bus for financial success. And someone has to do physical labor in this country.
Gymoor II The Return
15-12-2005, 00:02
Funny. Those opposed to the minimum wage increase use insults cite other countries, as if minimum wage was the only difference between the U.S. and other countries, and ignore studies based on U.S. employment after minimum wage hikes (such as I cited and included sources for.)

Curious, that.
Hyperspatial Travel
15-12-2005, 00:02
You know, I have the feeling the minimum wage should be raised. Why?
Well, I'm not an economist, I haven't studied economics (beyond a bit of schooling), but I have a practical, working example.

My country.

Here in Australia, we have a great minimum wage, enough to live on, easily. Of course, it doesn't apply to under-18s (Kids don't need to rent houses, though), and we have the dole, which is also enough to live on, although you have to prove you're at least looking for jobs while on the dole.

Sounds ecomically unfeasible? Read on.

I, and my family, are easily in the bottom 10% of Australia's income-earners. Single-parent family, my mother has part-time work, and yet, we can afford our own house(with individual bedrooms), a PC and the internet, a car, and all those sorts of things. By the standards of the US, we'd be pretty well-off.

Now, Australia takes money from the rich, taxes them virtually outrageously, in fact, and gives it to the poor. We have Medicare, to make sure we can always have subisidised medicine (something the US FTA is trying to take away), we have virtually no-one living on the streets (Unless they're stupid enough to take the dole and spend it all on booze and drugs), we have high taxes, and, to be frank, we're pretty socialist, in the way we redistrubute money.

Strangely enough, we have a budget which makes a profit. Also strangely enough, we tax the rich, we tax big business, we tax small business. Unemployment isn't exactly a problem. The latest government 'reform', which is knocking back mandatory increases of the minimum wage, and reducing the power of unions, is facing massive opposition, probably enough to get the damned right-wing(Not as outrageously right-wing as your Republicans, kind middle-right, like the Labour is middle-left) Liberals kicked out of power, and Labour back in. We've only ever had one major period of unemployment, and we shared it with the whole world; the Great Depression.

I simply find it strange that we have all the things that are said to 'crush' the economy, and yet we have a booming economy, nobody has to live on the streets, unless they're exceptionally stupid, and the rich aren't making us poorer via lack of investment. Why?

To me, it seems you guys are saying "Hey, look, if the rich are smart enough, or lucky enough, to cut away the food money from those poor people, they deserve their ninth BMW."

A 'chance' isn't nearly good enough, bad luck, a lack of skill in one area, or something silly like an unkempt appearance can prevent you from gaining a decent job, the minimum wage means you have the money to eat, live in something other than a hovel, and still have the time to look for another job, and develop more skills.

If somebody would care to explain how our economy is dying, and our evil socialist minimum wages are ruining our poor, poor, rich people, I'd be more than happy to listen.
Frangland
15-12-2005, 00:03
So what will he do with his money? Stuff it in a matress where it will make 0% returns?

take it off-shore, maybe to Japan
Drunk commies deleted
15-12-2005, 00:03
Uh no actually. In fact if they had to a pay living wage to everyone they'd be royally screwed. The company was bleeding red and had already engaged in cuts in other areas.
So we should make sure that unprofitable businesses can still survive, but unprofitable people can starve for all we care.
Frangland
15-12-2005, 00:04
You know, I have the feeling the minimum wage should be raised. Why?
Well, I'm not an economist, I haven't studied economics (beyond a bit of schooling), but I have a practical, working example.

My country.

Here in Australia, we have a great minimum wage, enough to live on, easily. Of course, it doesn't apply to under-18s (Kids don't need to rent houses, though), and we have the dole, which is also enough to live on, although you have to prove you're at least looking for jobs while on the dole.

Sounds ecomically unfeasible? Read on.

I, and my family, are easily in the bottom 10% of Australia's income-earners. Single-parent family, my mother has part-time work, and yet, we can afford our own house(with individual bedrooms), a PC and the internet, a car, and all those sorts of things. By the standards of the US, we'd be pretty well-off.

Now, Australia takes money from the rich, taxes them virtually outrageously, in fact, and gives it to the poor. We have Medicare, to make sure we can always have subisidised medicine (something the US FTA is trying to take away), we have virtually no-one living on the streets (Unless they're stupid enough to take the dole and spend it all on booze and drugs), we have high taxes, and, to be frank, we're pretty socialist, in the way we redistrubute money.

Strangely enough, we have a budget which makes a profit. Also strangely enough, we tax the rich, we tax big business, we tax small business. Unemployment isn't exactly a problem. The latest government 'reform', which is knocking back mandatory increases of the minimum wage, and reducing the power of unions, is facing massive opposition, probably enough to get the damned right-wing(Not as outrageously right-wing as your Republicans, kind middle-right, like the Labour is middle-left) Liberals kicked out of power, and Labour back in. We've only ever had one major period of unemployment, and we shared it with the whole world; the Great Depression.

I simply find it strange that we have all the things that are said to 'crush' the economy, and yet we have a booming economy, nobody has to live on the streets, unless they're exceptionally stupid, and the rich aren't making us poorer via lack of investment. Why?

To me, it seems you guys are saying "Hey, look, if the rich are smart enough, or lucky enough, to cut away the food money from those poor people, they deserve their ninth BMW."

A 'chance' isn't nearly good enough, bad luck, a lack of skill in one area, or something silly like an unkempt appearance can prevent you from gaining a decent job, the minimum wage means you have the money to eat, live in something other than a hovel, and still have the time to look for another job, and develop more skills.

If somebody would care to explain how our economy is dying, and our evil socialist minimum wages are ruining our poor, poor, rich people, I'd be more than happy to listen.

What are Australia's GDP per capita and unemployment rate?

(go socceroos... take down bra!)
Ogalalla
15-12-2005, 00:05
No. At $5.15 per hour, 40 hours per week, the average single minimum wage earner without children pays about $291 per year in income taxes. With one child, that would put him out of income taxes entirely.

At $6.00 per hour, it would be $468, or about $168 with one child. Two children would drop that person out of the tax brackets.

That's assuming no other deductions for savings or property taxes.
There is someone I work with who happens to make money off of taxes. I don't know all the details, but she has a low paying job and several kids. She still has to pay some income tax, but she always gets more back in her refund than she paid.
Drunk commies deleted
15-12-2005, 00:05
DC, look at the unemployment rates in half-socialist Western Europe... most are up around (at least) 10%.

Moral: The more socialism you introduce, the higher unemployment will be.
Look at their rates of child mortality. Their educational standards compared to us should make us ashamed. Kids don't seem to be growing up in desparate violent ghettos over there either. There are some trade offs in life. The fact is that even with higher unemployment they've got healthier, smarter, and safer societies.
Hyperspatial Travel
15-12-2005, 00:08
Well, I'm not sure of the conversion rate between US and AU dollars, nor the comparative value of goods, housing, etc, so I'm just going to post it in $AU.

http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/9ff2997ae0f762d2ca2568a90013934c?OpenDocument

5.1% unemployment rate. (As last month)

$31,700 average GDP per capita, as 2004.
Frangland
15-12-2005, 00:08
So we should make sure that unprofitable businesses can still survive, but unprofitable people can starve for all we care.

well if the company folds... everyone loses his job.
Gymoor II The Return
15-12-2005, 00:09
What are Australia's GDP per capita and unemployment rate?

(go socceroos... take down bra!)

You're still ignoring that in actual practice (as opposed to theory, which is hotly contested,) minimum wage increases in the U.S. have not been shown to impact employment negatively. If you have access to information that contradicts that, in real-world US conditions, please cite it.

Secondly, employment is NOT the end-all be-all indicator of economic robustness.
Frangland
15-12-2005, 00:09
Look at their rates of child mortality. Their educational standards compared to us should make us ashamed. Kids don't seem to be growing up in desparate violent ghettos over there either. There are some trade offs in life. The fact is that even with higher unemployment they've got healthier, smarter, and safer societies.

So the stuff that erupted all over France was due to their perfect "progressive" system, right?
Drunk commies deleted
15-12-2005, 00:09
take it off-shore, maybe to Japan
Doesn't Japan have more social welfare and taxation than the US does? I fail to see why their taxes would hurt investment returns less than ours.
Laenis
15-12-2005, 00:09
What are Australia's GDP per capita and unemployment rate?

(go socceroos... take down bra!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Australia

Doesn't seem bad to me. Britain also has a lower unemployment rate than the US, but is more socialist. Seems to me that a lot of these assumptions that socialist = high unemployment are mainly based on theory and a few European countries.
Frangland
15-12-2005, 00:10
Doesn't Japan have more social welfare and taxation than the US does? I fail to see why their taxes would hurt investment returns less than ours.

yeah

certainly the job would be sucky as hell to find new investment options, and i haven't done it, but needless to say, some of that money would go elsewhere. For some people, it (life) is just about money.
Sumamba Buwhan
15-12-2005, 00:11
I think it is reasonable to have a minimum wage, but I think it always needs to be pretty low. I just don't like the idea of the government getting involved in business (unless something obviously criminal is going on). That second question seemed to have a little bias in it. You assume we want to get the poorest workers higher paying jobs. We live in an incentive based environment, where all that you really need to get is infront of you. We have free public education. If you work hard on that you can get scholarships for college, and if that doesn't cover it all you can take out student loans. If you can get a college degree then you can pretty readily get a higher paying job (than minimum wage). That is the course that is pretty standard for people who want to make more money throughout their lives. That is the incentive for working hard at school when you are younger. But a lot of people pass up those oppurtunities for one reason or another. That often will cause them to have to start out at the lower end of the job pool. But sense these are all due to decisions you have made in your life, you are the person who gets to decide if you are going to be making $6 an hour or $25 an hour. The people who currently get paid less generally just missed the bus for financial success. And someone has to do physical labor in this country.


ahh so the poor are lazy? at least thats what you seem to be saying. talk about a viewpoint that pisses me off to no end.

If you haven't grown up poor then you really have no idea what it's like to try to "make it" in society. Public schools are a joke in poor areas. I know because I've gone to them.

Besides, Why should everyone be forced to live by what the market dictates as the right way to live? As the gap between rich and poor grows, and cities grow larger - It's either struggle to get a high paying job so that you can survive or live on the streets. Tryign to live simply really is becoming less of an option for people who want to be artists, self-sufficicnet farmers, or even laborers. Not everyone is cut out to be a capitalist.
Drunk commies deleted
15-12-2005, 00:11
well if the company folds... everyone loses his job.
And the competing companies need to meet the new higher demand (that was once satisfied by the defunct company) so they need to hire on more workers. Seems like it will work out either way.
Gymoor II The Return
15-12-2005, 00:13
So the stuff that erupted all over France was due to their perfect "progressive" system, right?

Yeah! And don't forget all those riots in the Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany, England, Denmark, Sweden, and all those other places in Europe!
Frangland
15-12-2005, 00:13
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Australia

Doesn't seem bad to me. Britain also has a lower unemployment rate than the US, but is more socialist. Seems to me that a lot of these assumptions that socialist = high unemployment are mainly based on theory and a few European countries.

i'd like to do a study concerned with finding out how increased taxes affects unemployment and per-capita GDP.

but NO FREAKING WAY. cripes, there are only so many hours in a day. hehe
Hyperspatial Travel
15-12-2005, 00:14
Pop below poverty line N/A (2004 est.)

Whoa. I wonder how that works..
Drunk commies deleted
15-12-2005, 00:14
So the stuff that erupted all over France was due to their perfect "progressive" system, right?
Why do you dwell on France, where a nearly month long riot claimed about the same number of lives as a month of relative calm in Gary, Indiana while ignoring Sweden, Norway, Finland, and so many other European nations?
Frangland
15-12-2005, 00:14
And the competing companies need to meet the new higher demand (that was once satisfied by the defunct company) so they need to hire on more workers. Seems like it will work out either way.

well if you take out the number of people who will blow their brains out over losing their jobs with the defunct company, there might not be enough people to fill labor demand for the competitors. hehe
Tderjeckistan
15-12-2005, 00:15
Just abolish the bosses and there you go. No need to even tax them (rich people get outrageously low taxes everywhere in our "western democracies"), just abolish them.

What do you need a boss for? Invest with YOUR money? The workers know what is good for them and the company they're working for and the job cuts everywhere in the manufactures (Ford, GM and so on) casts light on such a problem.

Your production force, your money. Simple as that. Just redistribute evenly among all the workers of a given workplace and you'd get a really place to live in.

So the stuff that erupted all over France was due to their perfect "progressive" system, right?
If you knew anything about France's "ghettos" (cités), you would know that they are far from being "progressives" with their youth, the result of a capitalist economy. High unemployment, just like american ghettos. Misery is the mother of violence.
Drunk commies deleted
15-12-2005, 00:15
well if you take out the number of people who will blow their brains out over losing their jobs with the defunct company, there might not be enough people to fill labor demand for the competitors. hehe
So the labor supply is reduced and demand remains about the same. That means better wages. It's win/win!
[NS]Pugna
15-12-2005, 00:16
Just abolish the bosses and there you go. No need to even tax them (rich people get outrageously low taxes everywhere in our "western democracies"), just abolish them.

What do you need a boss for? Invest with YOUR money? The workers know what is good for them and the company they're working for and the job cuts everywhere in the manufactures (Ford, GM and so on) casts light on such a problem.

Your production force, your money. Simple as that. Just redistribute evenly among all the workers of a given workplace and you'd get a really place to live in.
you need a boss to tell you what to do. Bosses are important for the company to run without filling for chapter 11 bankrupcy in 1 week of opening.
Frangland
15-12-2005, 00:16
Yeah! And don't forget all those riots in the Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany, England, Denmark, Sweden, and all those other places in Europe!

i'm talking about the Paris suburb riots... from people who don't work but have full benefits anyway. If you took some of those benefits away and made them get jobs to make ends meet, they might not have so much time to spend burning cars. But personal responsibility is lost on some people...

;)
Drunk commies deleted
15-12-2005, 00:16
Just abolish the bosses and there you go. No need to even tax them (rich people get outrageously low taxes everywhere in our "western democracies"), just abolish them.

What do you need a boss for? Invest with YOUR money? The workers know what is good for them and the company they're working for and the job cuts everywhere in the manufactures (Ford, GM and so on) casts light on such a problem.

Your production force, your money. Simple as that. Just redistribute evenly among all the workers of a given workplace and you'd get a really place to live in.
Um, no. I think we'll skip communism. Thanks anyway.
Kossackja
15-12-2005, 00:16
i am all for a law, that requires for everybody complete healthcoverage, a minimum salary of $10,000,000 per year and a 5000sqft beachhouse as minimum compensation for labour.
nobody would have to work til they drop, one could just do some work for an hour a day or so and then drive home to the beachhouse!

tell your lawmaker you want this law too!
Gymoor II The Return
15-12-2005, 00:17
And the competing companies need to meet the new higher demand (that was once satisfied by the defunct company) so they need to hire on more workers. Seems like it will work out either way.

Not to mention increased demand from minimum wage earners who suddenly have more buying power.
Frangland
15-12-2005, 00:17
Pugna']you need a boss to tell you what to do. Bosses are important for the company to run without filling for chapter 11 bankrupcy in 1 week of opening.

yep. Business education (or at least managerial experience in lieu of an MBA) is important to running a large business/corporation. Turn a company over to Average Joe and watch him run it into the ground.

At the least, you'd have to keep some mid-management people around to run things.
Blauschild
15-12-2005, 00:18
So we should make sure that unprofitable businesses can still survive, but unprofitable people can starve for all we care.

Shrug, cut the dice however you want but about 30 people lost their jobs because there was enough deadwood who was getting paid more than they contributed.

Also note the company didn't fold and it is currently surviving. Its moving. Perhaps you didn't notice that part.


You're still ignoring that in actual practice (as opposed to theory, which is hotly contested,) minimum wage increases in the U.S. have not been shown to impact employment negatively. If you have access to information that contradicts that, in real-world US conditions, please cite it.

Read http://www.epionline.org/oped_detail.cfm?oid=16

Yes its an opnion, citing studies.
Frangland
15-12-2005, 00:19
back in 5-10... i need a smoke.
Blauschild
15-12-2005, 00:21
You know, I have the feeling the minimum wage should be raised. Why?
Well, I'm not an economist, I haven't studied economics (beyond a bit of schooling), but I have a practical, working example.

My country.

Here in Australia, we have a great minimum wage, enough to live on, easily. Of course, it doesn't apply to under-18s (Kids don't need to rent houses, though), and we have the dole, which is also enough to live on, although you have to prove you're at least looking for jobs while on the dole.

Sounds ecomically unfeasible? Read on.

I, and my family, are easily in the bottom 10% of Australia's income-earners. Single-parent family, my mother has part-time work, and yet, we can afford our own house(with individual bedrooms), a PC and the internet, a car, and all those sorts of things. By the standards of the US, we'd be pretty well-off.

The average person who is classified as beneath the poverty line in the US has two color televisions, cable, a car, a computer, a refrigerator, a house that isn't overcrowded, a shower/bath etc.... Congratulations. You're considered beneath the poverty line in the US.
Gymoor II The Return
15-12-2005, 00:22
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm?id=2108

It ascribes a significant part of the problem of high teenage unemployment rates to high state minimum wages (or "maximum folly" according to the editorial). This claim disintegrates, however, under even the most cursory examination. Here's why. Teenage unemployment rose from 13.1% to 17% between 2000 and 2004. According to the Journal's argument, the increases in teen unemployment should have been higher in states with higher minimum wages than in those with low minimum wages. What actually happened was the reverse: Teenage unemployment rose 3.4% in the high minimum wage states, compared to 4.2% in the others.

Nor do economists view the issue with the monolithic disapproval that the Journal presents. Last fall, 562 economists signed a letter agreeing that "the minimum wage has been an important part of our nation's economy for 65 years." Further, they agreed that "as with a federal increase, modest increases in state minimum wages in the range of $1.00 to $2.00 can significantly improve the lives of low-income workers and their families, without the adverse effects that critics have claimed."
Hyperspatial Travel
15-12-2005, 00:24
No, socialism is, and will probably always be, a bad idea. Until we're perfect beings in mind, and can accept people for who they are, and look at being competitive as silly.. If you can't aspire to be the boss; no incentive to work harder. Sure, the Russians took it to one extreme (and look where it got them), and the US have taken it to another (That much poverty in a first-world country? TEN PERCENT?!), so we need somewhere in moderation. Sure, the rich deserve their hard-earned money, but, when you get down to it, a lot of that 'hard-earned' money is earned straight off the backs of the lowly workers. The taxes are simply making sure the cuts in worker's pay and benefits comes straight back to them.
Tderjeckistan
15-12-2005, 00:24
Um, no. I think we'll skip communism. Thanks anyway.
Moderate-socialist measures, eh? Never worked too good but it's still much better than the actual USA.
-------------------------------------------

Note:
Funny how even people labelled as far-right where I live would never even talk like half the people in this topic. Extreme right-wing, in contradiction with history. I mean, except if you're - let's say - in the richest 1/50 of the population, you're just plain stupid to promote free market, abolition of minimum wage and so on.

Some people should stop listening to the bullshit that their teachers told them in that *cough*economy*cough* (more like capitalist propaganda) class.
Blauschild
15-12-2005, 00:24
Not to mention increased demand from minimum wage earners who suddenly have more buying power.

Hey I know, if you reasoning was so correct why not just keep on raising the minimum wage? After all apparently only good things happen. How high can we take this eh? $100 an hour? 200?

Lets go back over what happened and see where you two went wrong.

A) Company says "fuck, can't pay these wages and make a profit. I'm going to Costa Rica"
B) Jobs in America go down. Jobs in Costa Rica go up.
C) Higher local unemployment where I am

Hmm. I don't quite see where this increased demand for minimum wage earners is coming from. Nor do I see where the greater buying power is coming from.
Gymoor II The Return
15-12-2005, 00:25
The average person who is classified as beneath the poverty line in the US has two color televisions, cable, a car, a computer, a refrigerator, a house that isn't overcrowded, a shower/bath etc.... Congratulations. You're considered beneath the poverty line in the US.

Do you have a source for this, or is it just something "someone told you"?
Drunk commies deleted
15-12-2005, 00:26
Moderate-socialist measures, eh? Never worked too good but it's still much better than the actual USA.
-------------------------------------------

Note:
Funny how even people labelled as far-right where I live would never even talk like half the people in this topic. Extreme right-wing, in contradiction with history. I mean, except if you're - let's say - in the richest 1/50 of the population, you're just plain stupid to promote free market, abolition of minimum wage and so on.

Some people should stop listening to the bullshit that their teachers told them in that *cough*economy*cough* (more like capitalist propaganda) class.
Never worked too good? Tell it to Finland.
Pepe Dominguez
15-12-2005, 00:28
Except that that never happens. Every time the minimum wage goes up, we hear this horror story about layoffs and spiraling inflation--but it never happens. If anything, the economy gets a little bump because the people who have to spend every penny they earn just to stay alive have a little more money to spend.

I haven't read through this entire thread, but I must say, as a former small buisness-owner, that people do get fired when wages rise. I've fired people for that very reason, when the wage went from 6.25 to 6.75..
Hyperspatial Travel
15-12-2005, 00:28
The average person who is classified as beneath the poverty line in the US has two color televisions, cable, a car, a computer, a refrigerator, a house that isn't overcrowded, a shower/bath etc.... Congratulations. You're considered beneath the poverty line in the US.

Oh, so all those people living on the streets are imaginary and don't exist?
Gymoor II The Return
15-12-2005, 00:29
Hey I know, if you reasoning was so correct why not just keep on raising the minimum wage? After all apparently only good things happen. How high can we take this eh? $100 an hour? 200?

Lets go back over what happened and see where you two went wrong.

A) Company says "fuck, can't pay these wages and make a profit. I'm going to Costa Rica"
B) Jobs in America go down. Jobs in Costa Rica go up.
C) Higher local unemployment where I am

Hmm. I don't quite see where this increased demand for minimum wage earners is coming from. Nor do I see where the greater buying power is coming from.

Your theory doesn't match reality, as I've show with actual real world figures. No significant job loss + increased buying power for people who simply HAVE to spend 100% of their income to get by = greater demand for goods and services.
Sumamba Buwhan
15-12-2005, 00:30
I haven't read through this entire thread, but I must say, as a former small buisness-owner, that people do get fired when wages rise. I've fired people for that very reason, when the wage went from 6.25 to 6.75..


Would it have bankrupted you or did you just not want to lose profit?
If you did fine without those workers then perhaps the wage increase was a good thing because as expensive as employees are, I'm betting that you boosted yrou profits by just having fewer workers work harder.
Tderjeckistan
15-12-2005, 00:31
Never worked too good? Tell it to Finland.
A country with near 10% people living under the poverty "line"? Sure, I will. I believe that as long as the rich and the really rich will be so on the backs of the poor and really poor, it is a shame.

Yeah, it never worked too good. Capitalism, by its very definition, is the exploitation of a man by another.
Gymoor II The Return
15-12-2005, 00:31
I haven't read through this entire thread, but I must say, as a former small buisness-owner, that people do get fired when wages rise. I've fired people for that very reason, when the wage went from 6.25 to 6.75..

But they get hired elsewhere. You firing someone doesn't mean they stay unemployed.
Frangland
15-12-2005, 00:32
So the labor supply is reduced and demand remains about the same. That means better wages. It's win/win!

hehe

"Disconsolate over recently losing your job? Blow out your brains and help increase your neighbor's chances at securing employment or keeping the job he has. Personal sacrifice: it's what keeps American strong. This has been a message from the Ad Council."
Hyperspatial Travel
15-12-2005, 00:34
The average person who is classified as beneath the poverty line in the US has two color televisions, cable, a car, a computer, a refrigerator, a house that isn't overcrowded, a shower/bath etc.... Congratulations. You're considered beneath the poverty line in the US.

Well, let's look at what wikipedia has to say on this, on the US Poverty Line.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_line_in_the_United_States

If a family's total income is less than that family's threshold, then that family, and every individual in it, is considered poor. The official poverty thresholds do not vary geographically, but they are updated annually for inflation using the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). The official poverty definition counts money income before taxes and does not include capital gains and noncash benefits (such as public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps).
------------
color televisions, 91%
microwave ovens, 74%;
VCRs, 55%;
clothes dryers, 47%;
stereos, 42%;
dishwashers, 23%;
computers, 21%;
garbage disposers, 19%

Yup, those poor people sure have two colour televisions and cable! I mean, they all have cable, and yet only a fifth of them have computers! Do these poor people somehow magically manage to plug these cables into their brains and run the internet from there?!
Blauschild
15-12-2005, 00:35
Oh, so all those people living on the streets are imaginary and don't exist?

There are some, and they happen to be far far below the average of the people below the poverty line.

Sigh, I've had to dig this up so many times I'm amazed it took me so long.

The average "poor" person, as defined by the government, has a living standard far higher than the public imagines. The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

* Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
* Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
* Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
* The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
* Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
* Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
* Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
* Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/BG1713es.cfm
Frangland
15-12-2005, 00:36
But they get hired elsewhere. You firing someone doesn't mean they stay unemployed.

it might, for some people.

some will find jobs right away

some will find jobs after a short search

some will find jobs after a long search

it will likely negatively affect many people (and there'll be some who'll miss a few rent payments whilst looking for new employment, get evicted, become homeless...)

Turnover sucks for everyone involved: businesses must train new people (or if the position itself is deleted, you lose the production/expertise of that position)... and those who lose their jobs might struggle while they look for new employment.
Pepe Dominguez
15-12-2005, 00:37
Would it have bankrupted you or did you just not want to lose profit?
If you did fine without those workers then perhaps the wage increase was a good thing because as expensive as employees are, I'm betting that you boosted yrou profits by just having fewer workers work harder.

Bankrupted? Not sure.. I can't predict future profits. No one can. 9/11 bankrupted us eventually, but that was just the last straw, really.

We did fine without those workers because I personally took over their shifts for a year, but if we didn't have free labor available (one benefit of family businesses), I'm not really sure what would've happened.. of course, I'm only arguing that wage hikes result in firings, not that those people who are fired won't be happier once they've found a new job under the new wage.. that's a possibility.
Blauschild
15-12-2005, 00:37
Well, let's look at what wikipedia has to say on this, on the US Poverty Line.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_line_in_the_United_States



Yup, those poor people sure have two colour televisions and cable! I mean, they all have cable, and yet only a fifth of them have computers! Do these poor people somehow magically manage to plug these cables into their brains and run the internet from there?!

Man I expected too much of you. Cable, when not mentioned with the word 'internet', means having a TV that is plugged into a cable box.
Blauschild
15-12-2005, 00:40
Your theory doesn't match reality, as I've show with actual real world figures. No significant job loss + increased buying power for people who simply HAVE to spend 100% of their income to get by = greater demand for goods and services.

What I posted above was not theory but is infact the reality of what is happening. But hey, maybe you missed that part.
Drunk commies deleted
15-12-2005, 00:41
A country with near 10% people living under the poverty "line"? Sure, I will. I believe that as long as the rich and the really rich will be so on the backs of the poor and really poor, it is a shame.

Yeah, it never worked too good. Capitalism, by its very definition, is the exploitation of a man by another.
Economy - overview:
Finland has a highly industrialized, largely free-market economy, with per capita output roughly that of the UK, France, Germany, and Italy. Its key economic sector is manufacturing - principally the wood, metals, engineering, telecommunications, and electronics industries. Trade is important, with exports equaling two-fifths of GDP. Finland excels in high-tech exports, e.g., mobile phones. Except for timber and several minerals, Finland depends on imports of raw materials, energy, and some components for manufactured goods. Because of the climate, agricultural development is limited to maintaining self-sufficiency in basic products. Forestry, an important export earner, provides a secondary occupation for the rural population. Rapidly increasing integration with Western Europe - Finland was one of the 12 countries joining the European Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) - will dominate the economic picture over the next several years. Growth in 2003 was held back by the global slowdown but picked up in 2004. High unemployment remains a persistent problem.
GDP (purchasing power parity):
$151.2 billion (2004 est.)
GDP - real growth rate:
3% (2004 est.)
GDP - per capita:
purchasing power parity - $29,000 (2004 est.)
GDP - composition by sector:
agriculture: 3.3%
industry: 30.2%
services: 66.5% (2004 est.)
Labor force:
2.66 million (2004 est.)
Labor force - by occupation:
agriculture and forestry 8%, industry 22%, construction 6%, commerce 14%, finance, insurance, and business services 10%, transport and communications 8%, public services 32%
Unemployment rate:
8.9% (2004 est.)
Population below poverty line:
NA
Household income or consumption by percentage share:
lowest 10%: 4.2%
highest 10%: 21.6% (1991)
Distribution of family income - Gini index:
25.6 (1991)
Inflation rate (consumer prices):
0.7% (2004 est.)
Investment (gross fixed):
18.3% of GDP (2004 est.)
Budget:
revenues: $96.43 billion
expenditures: $91.95 billion, including capital expenditures of NA (2004 est.)
Public debt:
46.8% of GDP (2004 est.)
Agriculture - products:
barley, wheat, sugar beets, potatoes; dairy cattle; fish
Industries:
metals and metal products, electronics, machinery and scientific instruments, shipbuilding, pulp and paper, foodstuffs, chemicals, textiles, clothing
Industrial production growth rate:
2% (2004 est.)
Electricity - production:
71.59 billion kWh (2002)
Electricity - consumption:
78.58 billion kWh (2002)
Electricity - exports:
1.5 billion kWh (2002)
Electricity - imports:
13.5 billion kWh (2002)
Oil - production:
0 bbl/day (2001 est.)
Oil - consumption:
211,400 bbl/day (2001 est.)
Oil - exports:
101,000 bbl/day (2001)
Oil - imports:
318,300 bbl/day (2001)
Natural gas - production:
0 cu m (2001 est.)
Natural gas - consumption:
4.557 billion cu m (2001 est.)
Natural gas - exports:
0 cu m (2001 est.)
Natural gas - imports:
4.567 billion cu m (2001 est.)
Current account balance:
$11.39 billion (2004 est.)
Exports:
$61.04 billion f.o.b. (2004 est.)
Exports - commodities:
machinery and equipment, chemicals, metals; timber, paper, pulp (1999)
Exports - partners:
Sweden 11.1%, Germany 10.7%, Russia 8.9%, UK 7%, US 6.4%, Netherlands 5.1% (2004)
Imports:
$45.17 billion f.o.b. (2004 est.)
Imports - commodities:
foodstuffs, petroleum and petroleum products, chemicals, transport equipment, iron and steel, machinery, textile yarn and fabrics, grains (1999)
Imports - partners:
Germany 16.2%, Sweden 14.3%, Russia 12.8%, Netherlands 6.3%, Denmark 5.2%, UK 4.6%, France 4.3% (2004)
Reserves of foreign exchange and gold:
$11.17 billion (2003)
Debt - external:
$30 billion (December 1993)
Economic aid - donor:
ODA, $379 million (2001)
Currency (code):
euro (EUR)
note: on 1 January 1999, the European Monetary Union introduced the euro as a common currency to be used by financial institutions of member countries; on 1 January 2002, the euro became the sole currency for everyday transactions within the member countries
Exchange rates:
euros per US dollar - 0.81 (2004), 0.89 (2003), 1.06 (2002), 1.12 (2001), 1.09 (2000)
Fiscal year:
calendar year


Seems like a pretty healthy economy to me.

Capitalism is like nuclear fusion. Uncontrolled it can destroy a civilization. If it can be harnessed though, it's the greatest engine for progress known to man. It can generate wealth that everyone can benefit from and it can drive the development of new technologies that improve the world for all.
Gymoor II The Return
15-12-2005, 00:42
it might, for some people.

some will find jobs right away

some will find jobs after a short search

some will find jobs after a long search

it will likely negatively affect many people (and there'll be some who'll miss a few rent payments whilst looking for new employment, get evicted, become homeless...)

Turnover sucks for everyone involved: businesses must train new people (or if the position itself is deleted, you lose the production/expertise of that position)... and those who lose their jobs might struggle while they look for new employment.

True. It's not a panacea. But there is NO EVIDENCE that minimum wage increases boost unemployment in the U.S. Or at least no evidence I've seen. I see assertions, but no numbers. I, on the other hand, HAVE provided numbers that argue against this myth. (see prior posts)
Ogalalla
15-12-2005, 00:42
ahh so the poor are lazy? at least thats what you seem to be saying. talk about a viewpoint that pisses me off to no end.

If you haven't grown up poor then you really have no idea what it's like to try to "make it" in society. Public schools are a joke in poor areas. I know because I've gone to them.

Besides, Why should everyone be forced to live by what the market dictates as the right way to live? As the gap between rich and poor grows, and cities grow larger - It's either struggle to get a high paying job so that you can survive or live on the streets. Tryign to live simply really is becoming less of an option for people who want to be artists, self-sufficicnet farmers, or even laborers. Not everyone is cut out to be a capitalist.
Well, if you live(d) in a poor area, then that is because your parents raised you in a poor area. So maybe you should blame them for making a bad decision and not pursuing college. Or maybe it was their parents. Somewhere in there someone made a bad call. My great great grandpa was a very very poor man, a man with a wife and 12 kids. But one of those kids using just a middle school education ended up working hard and making over $100,000 a year. And that was in the 30's and 40's. While you might argue that it isn't the same anymore, the US is a country where some hard work and a good personality can get you most anywhere you want to be. Also, make sure your kids and everyone around you knows that they should not aspire to be an artist. In almost every case, that is a bad choice.
In Summary, I just blamed either you, your parents, you grandparents, or someone else back in you family line for your life issues.
Blauschild
15-12-2005, 00:43
True. It's not a panacea. But there is NO EVIDENCE that minimum wage increases boost unemployment in the U.S. Or at least no evidence I've seen. I see assertions, but no numbers. I, on the other hand, HAVE provided numbers that argue against this myth. (see prior posts)

I do believe I quoted you a source that showed that those states in the US with the highest minimum wages also have the highest unemployments. intersting.
Hyperspatial Travel
15-12-2005, 00:44
Ah, I don't conform to US standards. Naturally, I must be lacking. Or it could be that you're just being an idiot and assuming anyone who who takes a different definition of a word, which is used widely to describe internet as well as TV, must be stupid, as everyone lives in the US, and has exactly the same standards as you. I expected too much from you.

As I don't live in an urban area, and cable has never been widely available, we have satellite transmitted Ozstar, however, cable internet is probably more available than cable TV. If you're going to be a cultural imperialist, and assume that, because a word that you use is used that way in your culture that way most of the time, it must be used that way in other cultures, you're an offensive idiot. Of course, if you were just not thinking, I can easily forgive you.
Blauschild
15-12-2005, 00:49
Ah, I don't conform to US standards. Naturally, I must be lacking. Or it could be that you're just being an idiot and assuming anyone who who takes a different definition of a word, which is used widely to describe internet as well as TV, must be stupid, as everyone lives in the US, and has exactly the same standards as you. I expected too much from you.

As I don't live in an urban area, and cable has never been widely available, we have satellite transmitted Ozstar, however, cable internet is probably more available than cable TV. If you're going to be a cultural imperialist, and assume that, because a word that you use is used that way in your culture that way most of the time, it must be used that way in other cultures, you're an offensive idiot. Of course, if you were just not thinking, I can easily forgive you.

Perhaps you need to take a few steps backwards in time and look at the development of TV. Cable TV came first. Decades before Satellite TV infact. So perhaps once again I expected too much of you in expected you to know a bit of recent history. Likewise as far as I know the people who provide Cable internet provide Cable Television and they are offered virtually hand in hand everywhere in the world. In fact it probably very rare where cable internet is offered but cable television is not.

You were wrong. You looked like an idiot. Trying to ‘you imperialist American dog’ your way out if it just makes you look pathetic. Especially given that the word cable was used in the same sentence referring to television.
Gymoor II The Return
15-12-2005, 00:49
What I posted above was not theory but is infact the reality of what is happening. But hey, maybe you missed that part.

No, you've SAID it's reality without backing it up with anything. I've backed up my argument. This, my friend, is the difference between "assertion" and "evidence".

You can SAY that minimum wage hikes increase unemplyment until you are blue in the face. Hope you have fun. Doesn't make it true.
Vetalia
15-12-2005, 00:50
True. It's not a panacea. But there is NO EVIDENCE that minimum wage increases boost unemployment in the U.S. Or at least no evidence I've seen. I see assertions, but no numbers. I, on the other hand, HAVE provided numbers that argue against this myth. (see prior posts)

There isn't any, really, because the period of fastest minimum wage growth was during the inflationary problems of the 1970's, which aren't an accurate comparison to ordinary conditions.

However, the other hikes did have unemployment data for the years where hikes did occur; two of the hikes occured shortly before recessions (1981 and 1990) while two occured near before employment reached prolonged peaks (1967/68 and 1996), so it's pretty inconclusive.
Blauschild
15-12-2005, 00:53
No, you've SAID it's reality without backing it up with anything. I've backed up my argument. This, my friend, is the difference between "assertion" and "evidence".

You can SAY that minimum wage hikes increase unemplyment until you are blue in the face. Hope you have fun. Doesn't make it true.

Uh no. The situation I quoted to you is the reality of a very specific example involving a company I worked for. The reality of what is happening is wages were to expensive here and they're picking up shop and moving to costa rica. Also quoted to you is that the states with the highest minimum wage have the highest unemployment. Enjoy.
Pepe Dominguez
15-12-2005, 00:53
There isn't any, really, because the period of fastest minimum wage growth was during the inflationary problems of the 1970's, which aren't an accurate comparison to ordinary conditions.

However, the other hikes did have unemployment data for the years where hikes did occur; two of the hikes occured shortly before recessions (1981 and 1990) while two occured near before employment reached prolonged peaks (1967/68 and 1996), so it's pretty inconclusive.

"Welcome to Economics," my professors used to say.. :p
Vetalia
15-12-2005, 00:55
I do believe I quoted you a source that showed that those states in the US with the highest minimum wages also have the highest unemployments. intersting.

Actually, I checked and states with unemployment are the ones with higher minimum wages.

Some of the states with a lower minimum wage or no state laws have higher unemployment. The reason is probably because the states with higher wages have stronger, higher paying economies, so the negative effects of a high wage are mitigated by the benefits.

States with lower wages tend to be poorer and more heavily manufacturing-oriented, so their economies are generally weaker and they eschew that in favor of attracting business.

It should also be noted that the states that pay a higher wage tend to not have economies that are concentrated towards the lower end of the economic spectrum.
Sumamba Buwhan
15-12-2005, 00:57
Well, if you live(d) in a poor area, then that is because your parents raised you in a poor area. So maybe you should blame them for making a bad decision and not pursuing college. Or maybe it was their parents. Somewhere in there someone made a bad call. My great great grandpa was a very very poor man, a man with a wife and 12 kids. But one of those kids using just a middle school education ended up working hard and making over $100,000 a year. And that was in the 30's and 40's. While you might argue that it isn't the same anymore, the US is a country where some hard work and a good personality can get you most anywhere you want to be. Also, make sure your kids and everyone around you knows that they should not aspire to be an artist. In almost every case, that is a bad choice.
In Summary, I just blamed either you, your parents, you grandparents, or someone else back in you family line for your life issues.

Not everything is as black and white as you seem to think. My single mother (my father left my mother and stole everything she had when I was not even a year old) worked two jobs for as long as I can remember, and we were always barely able to survive with the bare minimums as she dealth with medical bills and fixing the car and whatever else came up. My mom did all she could to keep me fed and clothed (even if most of my clothing was donated to us or purchased from a thrift store). My mother was unable to finish high school, though she tried her best. Right now she is living in a trailer that should be condemned as she works 6 days a week still tryign to survive and keep up with medical bills.

So she should have just been able to move to a rich area how? My grandparents (on my mothers side) had 8 kids, most of which are also still struggling, as the grandmother in law (my moms mom died in a car crash at a young age) took pretty much all the the money that my grandfater had saved and squandered it away when he got alzheimers and she put him in a home. My family fought this but they could do nothing.

Things aren't as easy as "WEll I want to live as a rich person so I will just work hard and do it" - there are way more factors than simply choosing where one lives and how hard one will work.
Blauschild
15-12-2005, 00:58
There isn't any, really, because the period of fastest minimum wage growth was during the inflationary problems of the 1970's, which aren't an accurate comparison to ordinary conditions.

However, the other hikes did have unemployment data for the years where hikes did occur; two of the hikes occured shortly before recessions (1981 and 1990) while two occured near before employment reached prolonged peaks (1967/68 and 1996), so it's pretty inconclusive.

Agreed it is inconclusive. Basic theory suggests raising minimum wages causes problems. Naturally the reality of the world is a bit more complicated. I've managed this argument a great many times and that is by far the most common answer. 'Inconclusive.'
Smeagoland
15-12-2005, 00:59
Except that that never happens. Every time the minimum wage goes up, we hear this horror story about layoffs and spiraling inflation--but it never happens. If anything, the economy gets a little bump because the people who have to spend every penny they earn just to stay alive have a little more money to spend.

Without appearing too rude, have you ever studied economics at beyond a high school level?

It is inevitable that raising the minimum wage will reduce jobs, and anyone that wishes to debate this with me is free to do so. I do not wish to explain in full detail but I have and currently am studying economics at a University.

I believe that there should not exist a minimum wage. Before you all twist your underpants into a knot and spew bile from your mouths, I had worked at a minimum wage level job for 2 years of my life. Reducing the minimum wages will create more jobs at the expense of some that will earn less. However, with more jobs workers will not be locked into a narrow field of opportunity. Even though businesses will not be forced to pay a certain amount, they will have to compete more so with other businesses for workers. Thus, many will continue to pay similar wages if not higher ones in order to attract the better workers. Workers possess more clout when there are more jobs, i.e. they can command/negotiate better wages or more readily take a better job elsewhere.

And what of those without employment still? I propose a welfare system modeled after the German system. The government subsidizes you for a specified time (approximately 1-2 years) and then you must find a job. In an economy as large as the United States almost anyone willing enough to find a job can, provided there isn't recession. And what of those unable to work for a long period of time or permanently I believe that the government ought to support them accordingly, but only because they cannot work rather than not having a job.
Vetalia
15-12-2005, 01:01
Agreed it is inconclusive. Basic theory suggests raising minimum wages causes problems. Naturally the reality of the world is a bit more complicated. I've managed this argument a great many times and that is by far the most common answer. 'Inconclusive.'

It honestly seems to depend on the economy in question. The states with the highest minimum wages tend to have the largest amounts of high-paying, salaried service-sector jobs as a percent of their total employment, so the minimum wage simply doesn't have the same effect.

I'd retain the present system, since raising wages wholesale could do more harm than good in some states.
Nikitas
15-12-2005, 01:03
It is inevitable that raising the minimum wage will reduce jobs, and anyone that wishes to debate this with me is free to do so. I do not wish to explain in full detail but I have and currently am studying economics at a University.

I'm fairly certain that we are all well aware of the theory. The question here is whether there is evidence supporting the model.

If the best we can say is "inconclusive" then the model is likely not accurate enough and needs to internalize additional factors.
Hyperspatial Travel
15-12-2005, 01:05
Perhaps you need to take a few steps backwards in time and look at the development of TV. Cable TV came first. Decades before Satellite TV infact. So perhaps once again I expected too much of you in expected you to know a bit of recent history. Likewise as far as I know the people who provide Cable internet provide Cable Television and they are offered virtually hand in hand everywhere in the world. In fact it probably very rare where cable internet is offered but cable television is not.

You were wrong. You looked like an idiot. Trying to ‘you imperialist American dog’ your way out if it just makes you look pathetic. Especially given that the word cable was used in the same sentence referring to television.

So? I'm a kid. I didn't call you an imperialist American dog, I said that, if you call me an idiot for having a different definition of a word to you, you're being an idiot. Let me explain some more. If you called me an 'ass', three or four years ago, I would've laughed at you for callling me a donkey. The US uses the word 'ass' for the butt, not a donkey. Using your logic, if I laughed at you for calling me a donkey, I'd be stupid. Incorrect.

Also, let's use some real logic, now. On the internet, people talk. You may've noticed us doing this right now, if you were observant. With TV, I sit down and watch. People discuss internet connections in games, for extra downloads, or just so they get the better deal out of their internet. I see very, very few ads on TV for cable television, on the few times I've knowingly watched it. Why? They already have it! There are virtually no adverts for television, whereas, on the internet, you discuss the internet. Seeing as I generally listen to real people on the internet more than I listen to the exciting and wondrous adverts on TV, is it any surprise that my definition of 'cable' is applied to the internet?

Furthermore, why would I go study the history of television? I watch television. I enjoy television. I don't need to know about my TV. I know about history that matters, war, diplomacy, etc. I don't go and learn about the history of television for the hell of it. Oh, let's have a look at another example. The word 'gay'. The definition meaning 'happy' came first. Centuries first, in fact. So perhaps I expect a bit too much of people when they use the word 'gay' to mean 'homosexual'?

Look, your education is different from mine, I accept that. I simply find it amusing that you seem to think anything you learnt is of far more importance than things others learnt.
Sumamba Buwhan
15-12-2005, 01:06
It is inevitable that raising the minimum wage will reduce jobs, and anyone that wishes to debate this with me is free to do so. I do not wish to explain in full detail but I have and currently am studying economics at a University.


Keep reading the thread. You will see that only studies contradicting your assertion here have been shown. Everything else to the contrary has been only opinion.

EDIT: also speaking of spewing bile... I've really only seen that from the conservative crowd in this thread. Calling people "Idiot", "ass", "stupid", "pathetic" ...
Gymoor II The Return
15-12-2005, 01:06
I do believe I quoted you a source that showed that those states in the US with the highest minimum wages also have the highest unemployments. intersting.

Ah, but that ignores what their starting point of unemployment was BEFORE minimum wage increases.

# The nonpartisan Fiscal Policy Institute reports that since 1997, states that have boosted their minimum wage have created jobs faster than those stuck at the lower federal level.
# In higher minimum wage states, employment grew by 50 percent more than it did in states still at the federal level. And that goes for the good economic times and bad: Princeton economist David Card found that even the minimum wage increases during the 1990-91 recession “were not associated with any measurable employment losses.”
# Total employment among states with a higher than federal minimum wage increased by 6.2% between 1998 and 2004. Among states with the lower federal rate, growth was only 4.1%. Total employment growth between 1998 and 2004 was 50% higher among states with minimum wage levels above the federal level (FPI).
# In the retail sector, the gap is far more pronounced. Retail growth in states with the federal minimum wage was a measly 1.9% between 1998 and 2004, compared with 6.1% in states with elevated minimum wage levels. In other words, states with higher minimum wage levels saw over 300% more growth in the retail sector than those states with the federal minimum wage.
Elizajeff
15-12-2005, 01:08
I know this will draw some ire, but how about having a maximum wage to help improve minimum wage employees. Let's say a person can earn a maximum of a million a year (that figure just came to the top of my head) and everything above and beyond that goes back to the government to help subsidize low income housing, welfare, etc. to help out the people who need help.
Blauschild
15-12-2005, 01:08
I'm fairly certain that we are all well aware of the theory. The question here is whether there is evidence supporting the model.

If the best we can say is "inconclusive" then the model is likely not accurate enough and needs to internalize additional factors.
Welcome to Economics. The 'Hard' Science of Humanity. Part of the problem is that minimum wage raises and falls in real value every year, and most likely we've never caused a large enough sudden change in it to be the dominate factor in the economy at any one moment in time. However raising it to a 'living wage' level would be an unprecedented wage increase. And is thusly rather risky.
Nikitas
15-12-2005, 01:09
It honestly seems to depend on the economy in question. The states with the highest minimum wages tend to have the largest amounts of high-paying, salaried service-sector jobs as a percent of their total employment, so the minimum wage simply doesn't have the same effect.

I understand what you are saying, but I want to point out a problem.

The sources that GR cited also demonstrate that there was a rise in income, suggesting that not only was the increase in the min wage not harmful, but also helpful, more importantly some how relevant. It may be that the high-paying economies in the high income states make the min wage irrelevant, as in not effective, or it could be the min wage that has positively effected their economies. We would need to examine employment, income, and the rise in min wage over a timeline to really see what is going on.
Blauschild
15-12-2005, 01:09
I know this will draw some ire, but how about having a maximum wage to help improve minimum wage employees. Let's say a person can earn a maximum of a million a year (that figure just came to the top of my head) and everything above and beyond that goes back to the government to help subsidize low income housing, welfare, etc. to help out the people who need help.

"Operator, hi, I'd like the number to the Royal Canadian Bank of the Cayman Islands"
"Sure its X"
"Thanks"

Dials X

"Hi, I'd like to open a numbered account"
Vetalia
15-12-2005, 01:10
Ah, but that ignores what their starting point of unemployment was BEFORE minimum wage increases.

This is probably due to the fact that the states with higher minimum wages had better economies; all of them are the states with the largest IT sectors, largest financial sectors, and largest engineering/business/technology services sectors. They have these high-paying, high education workforces that are able to sustain that higher wage than poorer states.

It's probably more a byproduct of that success rather than a gain in itself. What it seems to show is that the minimum wage should be higher in places where more employees are better educated and earn more money, to help shore up the lower end of the economy.
Nikitas
15-12-2005, 01:13
Welcome to Economics. The 'Hard' Science of Humanity. Part of the problem is that minimum wage raises and falls in real value every year, and most likely we've never caused a large enough sudden change in it to be the dominate factor in the economy at any one moment in time. However raising it to a 'living wage' level would be an unprecedented wage increase. And is thusly rather risky.

It's not much, but my BA suggests that we've already been introduced.

You are making an argument similar to Vetalia here. Yes, if the market wage is higher than the min wage, due to a high performing economy, then the model would expect no effect on the min wage.

But as I pointed out to Vetalia, the studies that GR has posted suggests a positive effect on income as well. That means that the min wage is not irrelevant, that is to say below the market wage.
Vetalia
15-12-2005, 01:13
The sources that GR cited also demonstrate that there was a rise in income, suggesting that not only was the increase in the min wage not harmful, but also helpful, more importantly some how relevant. It may be that the high-paying economies in the high income states make the min wage irrelevant, as in not effective, or it could be the min wage that has positively effected their economies. We would need to examine employment, income, and the rise in min wage over a timeline to really see what is going on.

I'd say, based upon the history of the economies in question (like California, New York, etc.) that the minimum wage simply doesn't have a negative effect because there are so few people relative to the size of the workforce employed in those jobs. Simply put, the minimum wage doesn't affect enough people relative to the size of the economy to do anything but have a slight positive benefit stemming from the higher wages.
Kossackja
15-12-2005, 01:16
how about having a maximum wage to help improve minimum wage employees. Let's say a person can earn a maximum of a million a year (that figure just came to the top of my head) and everything above and beyond that goes back to the governmentunpractical to enforce, you would need a huge beaurocracy to monitor everything. first people would choose compensation in other ways than money, like limousines, private jets, food etc. or they dont work as employees anymore but as contractors of their own companies, which they hold theirselves and then the money they receive goes into their company, growing the equity funds (and the fortune of the owner) but it is not a wage.
Nikitas
15-12-2005, 01:18
I'd say, based upon the history of the economies in question (like California, New York, etc.) that the minimum wage simply doesn't have a negative effect because there are so few people relative to the size of the workforce employed in those jobs. Simply put, the minimum wage doesn't affect enough people relative to the size of the economy to do anything but have a slight positive benefit stemming from the higher wages.

The studies were based on nation-wide numbers. If things are as you say then the 'slight postive' effect on income in those high performance states couldn't possibly be outdone by the presumed negative in the low performing states.

Granted this is a lot of speculation here, but on the whole I just don't see how it all adds up, if things are as you say.
Hyperspatial Travel
15-12-2005, 01:19
"Operator, hi, I'd like the number to the Royal Canadian Bank of the Cayman Islands"
"Sure its X"
"Thanks"

Dials X

"Hi, I'd like to open a numbered account"

Hehehe. It's true. Look, I'm no economist, but a maximum wage is a bad idea. A massive minimum wage boost is a bad idea. I simply feel that skimming a bit more off the rich could actually help the US (or any other country) as a whole.

I mean, look at the abolishment of slavery! The US had its war over it, but the schism ended, and it's better off today than it was then. I don't blame the rich, so much as I blame the crappy government you guys have the bad luck to have right now.
Vetalia
15-12-2005, 01:21
The studies were based on nation-wide numbers. If things are as you say than the 'slight postive' effect on income in those high performance states couldn't possibly be outdone by the presumed negative in the low performing states..

The highest performance states are also the largest states (California, New York, Florida), so the positive effect is probably magnified because their populations are so large, which outstrips the negative effects in the other states.

It's really inconclusive; there haven't been enough studies to definitely go one way or another.
Blauschild
15-12-2005, 01:21
-snip-

You made a dumbass comment. Were shown wrong. You looked like an idiot. You continue to look like an idiot.
Elizajeff
15-12-2005, 01:22
unpractical to enforce, you would need a huge beaurocracy to monitor everything. first people would choose compensation in other ways than money, like limousines, private jets, food etc. or they dont work as employees anymore but as contractors of their own companies, which they hold theirselves and then the money they receive goes into their company, growing the equity funds (and the fortune of the owner) but it is not a wage.

Of course people would open off shore accounts and find loopholes around it but I still feel it couldn't hurt. When 5% of the populace controls 90% of the wealth we've got to find a way to level the playing field.
Sumamba Buwhan
15-12-2005, 01:24
You made a dumbass comment. Were shown wrong. You looked like an idiot. You continue to look like an idiot.

Ths helps your argument (or anything for that matter) how?
Nikitas
15-12-2005, 01:24
The highest performance states are also the largest states (California, New York, Florida), so the positive effect is probably magnified because their populations are so large, which outstrips the negative effects in the other states.

It's really inconclusive; there haven't been enough studies to definitely go one way or another.

Right, but that would be a minority of those high performance states. Aren't there fewer poor people in New York and California than the whole of the U.S.?
Equus
15-12-2005, 01:25
The average person who is classified as beneath the poverty line in the US has two color televisions, cable, a car, a computer, a refrigerator, a house that isn't overcrowded, a shower/bath etc.... Congratulations. You're considered beneath the poverty line in the US.Citations please. Lord knows that's not the poverty line here in Canada, I'd be surprised if it was in the US.
Blauschild
15-12-2005, 01:25
Of course people would open off shore accounts and find loopholes around it but I still feel it couldn't hurt. When 5% of the populace controls 90% of the wealth we've got to find a way to level the playing field.

Top 5% Control 31.18% of income and pay 54.36% of taxes. But anyway...

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/250.html
Blauschild
15-12-2005, 01:26
Citations please. Lord knows that's not the poverty line here in Canada, I'd be surprised if it was in the US.

For the love of god continue reading the thread.
Gymoor II The Return
15-12-2005, 01:27
http://www.startupjournal.com/columnists/enterprise/20040729-bounds.html

"The common knee-jerk reaction that a minimum-wage hike hurts small entrepreneurs is not a calculated economic response," says Kathryn Wylde, president of Partnership for New York City, a powerful nonprofit group of CEOs founded by David Rockefeller. The Partnership recently broke with tradition of many business-advocacy groups and came out supporting an increase of New York's minimum wage. Ms. Wylde cites turnover and training as key reasons why entrepreneurs are under greater pressure to pay more than minimum wage -- mostly because employees are constantly leaving to seek higher-paying jobs.

This churning of workers is their single biggest expense," she says. What business owners might save in payroll expenses, they are losing in the "cost of recruitment, human resources and lost investment in training people to run the cash register when they'll be gone in six months."

But two different reports raise questions about just how dire the damage might be. A recent analysis of the 12 states that have a higher minimum wage than the federal minimum showed that aggregate employment growth performed at least as favorably as in states where the $5.15 federal minimum prevails, according to the Fiscal Policy Institute in Albany, N.Y., an economic research group. And among small businesses with 50 or fewer employees, the number of establishments increased by 3.1% for the higher minimum wage states compared with 1.6% for the balance of the states.

Moreover, when the minimum wage was raised to $5.15 from $4.75 in September 1997, the total number of minimum-wage workers in firms with fewer than 100 employees stayed flat, the SBA's Office of Advocacy report says. "Our conclusion is that smaller firms were already paying higher wages in order to retain their workers," the report says.
Equus
15-12-2005, 01:28
For the love of god continue reading the thread.I did. No where did anyone answer my question.
Nikitas
15-12-2005, 01:29
Top 5% Control 31.18% of income and pay 54.36% of taxes. But anyway...

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/250.html

Does their definition of income include wealth in general? As in returns on capital? Or just income from employment?

The top 5%, especially the wealthiest portion of that percentage, wouldn't get much income from employment.
Sumamba Buwhan
15-12-2005, 01:29
I did. No where did anyone answer my question.

I think he did post some talkign points from the Heritage foundation
Gymoor II The Return
15-12-2005, 01:30
Top 5% Control 31.18% of income and pay 54.36% of taxes. But anyway...

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/250.html

Ya know, posting reports EXCLUSIVELY from conservative think-tanks isn't really the way to go. At least I try to mix my sources some.
Equus
15-12-2005, 01:30
I think he did post some talkign points from the Heritage foundation
Thank you, I'll look again.
Blauschild
15-12-2005, 01:31
Ya know, posting reports EXCLUSIVELY from conservative think-tanks isn't really the way to go. At least I try to mix my sources some.

Yes because IRS data lies.
Vetalia
15-12-2005, 01:32
Right, but that would be a minority of those high performance states. Aren't there fewer poor people in New York and California than the whole of the U.S.?

No, actually New York and California rank higher in poverty. However, since they are bigger economies with more income, the poverty rate adjusts itself accordingly. That's why it's so hard to draw conclusions about this, because states with a larger percent of their population below the property line tend to be less competitive for business investment regardless of their minimum wage...but at the same time, large, wealthy economies might have more people under the poverty line simply because they have distorting factors that raise that line.
Gymoor II The Return
15-12-2005, 01:32
Does their definition of income include wealth in general? As in returns on capital? Or just income from employment?

The top 5%, especially the wealthiest portion of that percentage, wouldn't get much income from employment.

It's from IRS reports, so it's income, not wealth.
Blauschild
15-12-2005, 01:33
Does their definition of income include wealth in general? As in returns on capital? Or just income from employment?

The top 5%, especially the wealthiest portion of that percentage, wouldn't get much income from employment.

Its income tax figures. Not 'definitions.' If you pay income tax on it, its there.
Equus
15-12-2005, 01:33
I think he did post some talkign points from the Heritage foundationWow. The poverty line in the US must be calculated differently than it is here. No wonder I've seen stats that indicate that 12% of the US population lives below the poverty line.

This is an example of how Canada determines the "Low Income Cutoff"

http://www.ccsd.ca/factsheets/fs_lic01.htm
Vetalia
15-12-2005, 01:35
It's from IRS reports, so it's income, not wealth.

The Gini coefficent for the US is 40.8, which is somewhat higher than Europe but still not terrible. However, you also have to take in to account that America has a much larger amount of investments than any other country, which might distort the index relative to nations without the same amount of investment.
Kajade
15-12-2005, 01:35
And all the union wages indextd to the minimum wage go up that much more. But you know, I agree with you. I really hate seeing teenagers in the labor force anyway. I'd much rather have adults needing to pay rent working for "minimum wage" than a bunch of Bling-Obsessed teens living with the 'rents anyway.

What, that wasn't what you had in mind?

Not always the case. My brother used his high school jobs to secretly put back money, then he surprised us all one day when he said he'd saved enough to put down a first and last months' rent so that we could move out of government housing (my mom's disabled, by the way).

Just thought I'd interject that. It's always good to remember there are exceptions to rules.

Peace
Clint
Gymoor II The Return
15-12-2005, 01:35
Yes because IRS data lies.

The data doesn;t lie, but how that data was applied creates a false impression.
Sumamba Buwhan
15-12-2005, 01:35
Wow. The poverty line in the US must be calculated differently than it is here. No wonder I've seen stats that indicate that 12% of the US population lives below the poverty line.

Well I'm not sure how trustworthy the stats from a conservative think tank are. But, it could be true, and if so I would change the definition.
Sumamba Buwhan
15-12-2005, 01:37
Wow. The poverty line in the US must be calculated differently than it is here. No wonder I've seen stats that indicate that 12% of the US population lives below the poverty line.

This is an example of how Canada determines the "Low Income Cutoff"

http://www.ccsd.ca/factsheets/fs_lic01.htm

Here's the US correlation for poverty guidelines: http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/05poverty.shtml
Vetalia
15-12-2005, 01:37
Well I'm not sure how trustworthy the stats from a conservative think tank are. But, it could be true, and if so I would change the definition.

This year, the poverty rate is 12.7%.

2004 Poverty Data (US Census Bureau) (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty04.html)
Aggretia
15-12-2005, 01:40
I'm fairly certain that we are all well aware of the theory. The question here is whether there is evidence supporting the model.

If the best we can say is "inconclusive" then the model is likely not accurate enough and needs to internalize additional factors.

Before I'm going to accept that minimum wage laws help create jobs I'm going to need theoretical justification. In economics you can't use empirical data alone because you can't set up a proper experiment, that's impossible.

It seems very simple to see that forcing people to pay more for labor is going to make them buy less labor, creating a surplus of labor(unemployemnt). This may merely suggest that the labor market is rather inelastic, and that other economic factors cause these fluctuations in labor supply.

Another possibility is that economic success, when acting with the political system, creates disconcern about the economy and allows politicians in our democracy to raise minimum wage to get votes.
Deep Kimchi
15-12-2005, 01:40
Why? Because according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, there is no place in the US where a person working full-time for minimum wage can pay fair-market price for a one-bedroom apartment.

I don't know where you live, but it's been that way since 1978, when I first moved out of my parents house when I was 17. And during the time I was making minimum wage back then, it was below 4 dollars an hour (3.65 I believe).

In the area where I live now, to get a one-bedroom apartment (not an efficiency), you'll need around 900 dollars a month to rent it.

If you figure that a month is four 40-hr weeks, that's 160 hours. To arrive at their figure for rent expenditure, 30 percent of your take home pay, we'll need 18 dollars and 75 cents an hour - and if you figure that utilities will run you about 150 a month, you'll need more.

Then again, if you're an able-bodied person in this area, with no education, you can make more than minimum wage quite easily. In fact, you can probably make close to that 18 dollars an hour doing manual labor around here - only an idiot works at a fast food restaurant around here.
East Lithuania
15-12-2005, 01:40
the only reason why this is true is because the cost of housing and such is amazingly high. if those went down, then maybe minimum wage workers can afford more
Elizajeff
15-12-2005, 01:41
To hell with poverty, we'll get drunk on cheap wine!
Blauschild
15-12-2005, 01:41
The data doesn;t lie, but how that data was applied creates a false impression.

Right..... :rolleyes: The false impression being that the wealthy pay more than their share of income tax?
Vetalia
15-12-2005, 01:43
It seems very simple to see that forcing people to pay more for labor is going to make them buy less labor, creating a surplus of labor(unemployemnt). This may merely suggest that the labor market is rather inelastic, and that other economic factors cause these fluctuations in labor supply.

If you look at the times when the wage was increased, they were almost always at points of near full employment. Wages rose because the labor market was tight. Now, if you were to increase it during a recession like in 2001, it would probably worsen unemployment because there would be that artificial increase in labor cost.

Another possibility is that economic success, when acting with the political system, creates disconcern about the economy and allows politicians in our democracy to raise minimum wage to get votes.

Probably not, simply because a lot of the eligible poor don't vote relative to the middle or upper classes.
Tyrandis
15-12-2005, 01:43
I always thought Milton Friedman's negative income tax would be a viable replacement for the minimum wage (and the entire decrepit welfare state).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

A negative income tax would replace the current progressive income tax system used throughout most of the western world. This would be replaced by a flat tax of, say, 25%, but each taxpayer would also be given $10,000 by the government. Thus a person earning only $4000 per year would pay $1000 in taxes, but overall would receive a net gain of $9,000 from the government. A person making $40,000 would be at the break-even point and would neither pay taxes nor receive any benefits. A person making $1,000,000 per year would pay close to the full 25% tax, as the $10,000 would count little towards relieving their tax burden.

No more stupid IRS forms to fill out, anyways.
Travis Isle
15-12-2005, 01:50
Oh really? I just got laid off today precisely because the minimum wage in California is too high. Company is shipping the operation to... Costa Rica. Wonderful. Something about how they pay us $6.75 and hour plus $2 for the first up sell, $4 for the second and $2.50 for the third. Meanwhile in Costa Rica they will be paying them $4/hour and 30 cents for the first up sell, 50 cents for the second and 30 cents for the third. Nice eh? (Sales based job btw, hence the commissions.)


That's not quite the same. Outsourcing is different than just simply being laid off. I hate companies that outsource all of their jobs. In the long run they're only hurting themselves, because if they don't produce jobs for the lower class, then they will inevitablly lose money. Outsourcing should be regulated.
Gymoor II The Return
15-12-2005, 01:55
Right..... :rolleyes: The false impression being that the wealthy pay more than their share of income tax?

Actually, since the rich benefit disproportionately from the political and legal processes and the physical and economic infrastructure of the country, I don't think it's unfair that they give back to, other than their entrepreneurial spirit, the source of their wealth and stability.

This is, after all, the Land of Opportunity. Some gratitude would be nice.

In addition, income is not the only source of wealth.
New Rafnaland
15-12-2005, 01:57
That's why government should regulate capitalism. Make sure that regardless of where they hire workers they pay them a living wage or they don't get to sell their products over here. Levels the playing field a little.

No, they'd close their doors and move somewhere else. Like the cruise industry has for years. They're based out of all manner of small out of the way countries, and not the US, even though they almost never cater to or even hire people from those countries. Mostly because they can still make all the money, but they won't have to spend nearly as much on making sure their ships put out as little polution as the US government says they should.

Instead of getting outsourcing of labor, you'd get outsourcing of whole companies. At the end of the day, minimum wage does nothing by artificially inflate the rate at which companies outsource their jobs. Increasing minimum wage increases the costs on the company employing those workers. This means they'll either lay them off (which someone pointed out that they don't), try to save money elsewhere (with materials of lesser quality, &c.), or raise the prices on their goods.

Now, I'm all for a living wage. I just don't see how it can be done with out reverting to socialism (which goes against the whole freedom thing). I believe people ought to have the right to healthcare when they need it, to a roof over their heads, food in their bellies, and clothes on their back. But who's going to pay for it? Are you willing to pay for it? Are you willing to give up your internet connection to buy a pair of socks for a homeless man, go without lunch to give the money you'd spend on it to a homeless shelter and then spend your lunch hour serving them the soup that was made using materials you bought with the money you didn't spend on your own lunch?

If you aren't willing to spend your own money helping these people, why do you feel the urge to make others pay for them?

Long story short: If you want to help people, join a church. If you want to help yourself, keep doing what you're doing.
Blauschild
15-12-2005, 02:00
That's not quite the same. Outsourcing is different than just simply being laid off. I hate companies that outsource all of their jobs. In the long run they're only hurting themselves, because if they don't produce jobs for the lower class, then they will inevitablly lose money. Outsourcing should be regulated.

Keep on reading the thread for another 100 odd posts. My company would have simply gone out of business if it had had to stay in the US.
Blauschild
15-12-2005, 02:01
Actually, since the rich benefit disproportionately from the political and legal processes and the physical and economic infrastructure of the country, I don't think it's unfair that they give back to, other than their entrepreneurial spirit, the source of their wealth and stability.

This is, after all, the Land of Opportunity. Some gratitude would be nice.

Gratitude is given. Not taken.
Gymoor II The Return
15-12-2005, 02:04
Keep on reading the thread for another 100 odd posts. My company would have simply gone out of business if it had had to stay in the US.

I doubt that the amount it had to pay minimum wage earners was the sole reason for your companies problems...
Blauschild
15-12-2005, 02:04
In addition, income is not the only source of wealth.

Correct. However it is the initial creator of wealth. All wealth was at one time income and as such has already been taxed as income. Punishing someone for something thats already been taxed seems rather foolish. The questionable one is inheritance. Which even then has already had income paid. Investments likewise, the return on my already generated wealth, also get taxed as income once I realize them. So does gambling for that matter.
Blauschild
15-12-2005, 02:05
I doubt that the amount it had to pay minimum wage earners was the sole reason for your companies problems...

Funny, they seem to think they'll be making more money in Costa Rica and scarred up the investors to help them move.
Gymoor II The Return
15-12-2005, 02:06
Gratitude is given. Not taken.

The problem is that gratitude is not given...
Blauschild
15-12-2005, 02:07
The problem is that gratitude is not given...

So rather then run a fair system, we'd rather just take. Robbery by the government is no different than from a petty theif. Its simply legal.
Gymoor II The Return
15-12-2005, 02:08
Correct. However it is the initial creator of wealth. All wealth was at one time income and as such has already been taxed as income. Punishing someone for something thats already been taxed seems rather foolish. The questionable one is inheritance. Which even then has already had income paid. Investments likewise, the return on my already generated wealth, also get taxed as income once I realize them. So does gambling for that matter.

Everything has been taxed before, because money keeps circulating. Using your argument, nothing can be taxed.
DrunkenDove
15-12-2005, 02:09
So rather then run a fair system, we'd rather just take. Robbery by the government is no different than from a petty theif. Its simply legal.

Hah. Legality makes all the difference.
Gymoor II The Return
15-12-2005, 02:09
So rather then run a fair system, we'd rather just take. Robbery by the government is no different than from a petty theif. Its simply legal.

So rather than pay a fair wage, employers would rather just take...
Vetalia
15-12-2005, 02:10
That's not quite the same. Outsourcing is different than just simply being laid off. I hate companies that outsource all of their jobs. In the long run they're only hurting themselves, because if they don't produce jobs for the lower class, then they will inevitablly lose money. Outsourcing should be regulated.

No company outsources all of its jobs. No more than a third of companies even do it. Outsourcing is a legitimate response to competition, the very thing that made America great (we, after all, were the target of outsourcing from European manufacturers), and should not be regulated unless you are willing to regulate foreign companies' hiring in the US. This is a global economy, and you have to compete globally in order to succeed. Regulating outsourcing is nothing more than shutting the door to competition, and could end very badly for the US.
Equus
15-12-2005, 02:13
Here's the US correlation for poverty guidelines: http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/05poverty.shtml
Thank you. I see that there is no (well, little, since all 48 mainland states are the same) adjustment for where you live, even though a large city like San Francisco costs much more to live in than rural Mississippi, for example.

Incidentally, it occurs to me that just because you own TVs, dishwashers, or cars, doesn't mean you personally bought them. I use those examples simply because I or my siblings have bought such items for my parents and younger siblings. And owning property doesn't on its own lift you above any poverty line - it may be inherited. Sure, you may get money selling it, but then you'd have to find somewhere else to live which may be even less cost-efficient. Again, it depends on where you live.
The Nazz
15-12-2005, 02:18
ahh, no

we're not communists, after all.

it's up to businesses, consumers and investors.

(and we should be glad as hell we don't have a controlled/planned economy)

we have the Fed, who helps guard against high inflation and high unemployment

Congress passes tax programs

but thank goodness you and I can still decide how to spend our money (for the most part)
Congress has the job of regulating commerce--if that doesn't equate to running the economy, then what does?
Vetalia
15-12-2005, 02:20
Congress has the job of regulating commerce--if that doesn't equate to running the economy, then what does?

Regulating and running are two different things. They should do what is necessary to balance the economy between the various components of it, but should not interfere with its workings unless necessary (like they disgracefully did with the CNOOC-Unocal deal).
Nikitas
15-12-2005, 02:22
No, actually New York and California rank higher in poverty. However, since they are bigger economies with more income, the poverty rate adjusts itself accordingly. That's why it's so hard to draw conclusions about this, because states with a larger percent of their population below the property line tend to be less competitive for business investment regardless of their minimum wage...but at the same time, large, wealthy economies might have more people under the poverty line simply because they have distorting factors that raise that line.

I don't see what point you are trying to make here.

The economies that have higher percentages of people below the poverty line are those that have experienced a beneficial effect from raising the minimum wage. Your argument that they could afford it because they are high performance economices flies in the face of the theory being debated. Under the current model there is no 'we can afford it.' It's simply a function of a price floor creating a surplus.

Now here we have a set of economies that should be the greatest effected in terms of increased unemployment actually performing well despite the high minimum wage.

In any case I don't have a pony in this race, I'll settle for the evidence being inconclusive.

Before I'm going to accept that minimum wage laws help create jobs I'm going to need theoretical justification. In economics you can't use empirical data alone because you can't set up a proper experiment, that's impossible.

It seems very simple to see that forcing people to pay more for labor is going to make them buy less labor, creating a surplus of labor(unemployemnt). This may merely suggest that the labor market is rather inelastic, and that other economic factors cause these fluctuations in labor supply.

Look, we have evidence that the current model isn't lining up with reality. Inconclusive evidence may be just as bad as negative evidence as it may suggest that the model is not adequately internalizing all of the appropriate variables.

You want a new model? Well I can't give you that here, but off the cuff here's what I can offer.

Employers want to pay more than the market wage. They want to pay more to encourage employee productivity and retain their employees so they do not lose any investments on their employees.

Yet they do not do so and the market wage is artificially low. Why? Perhaps because of strategic concerns. Employers who can afford to and want to raise wages think that if they do then their competitors will follow in kind, thus negating the advantage of the higher wage while burdening them with the increased costs.

However, when the minimum wage is raised to a level that is closer to where the market should be then all employers must pay out higher wages. Since they could have done so anyway, but didn't due to strategic concerns, they do not have to let anyone go.

Now some firms will not have wanted to raise wages, they will let a few people go. Some firms are enjoying economies of scale so that they will pay the higher wage and hire more employees. The point is a raise in the minimum wage will not cause unemployment unless you have more firms that can't afford the higher wage than firms that can.

Anyway, I have some work to get to. Night all.
Gymoor II The Return
15-12-2005, 02:28
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tax/
[NS]Trans-human
15-12-2005, 02:31
Pollution regulations are a poor solution to deal with the social cost inflicted upon all of society. A better way would be to tax per unit of pollution so that small and large firms alike can find an economically efficient means of accounting for their pollution, thereby helping the environment AND maintaining market efficiency. In a libertarian society, pollution is considered a negative externality, and therefore a just use of government intrusion in the form of taxation rather than regulation.

Slavery goes against both natural rights, and the rights to own property. Again, in a libertarian society it would be simply unacceptable.

The whole point is, in my opinion the only thing the government should do that involves the economy is to account for externalities. The minimum wage laws are not externalities. Economic regulations are not externalities. Externalities are solved through taxation, like my pollution example.

Doesn't freedom and property rights to one's body and labor give one the right to give up or sell oneself into slavery on a contractual basis in a libertarian society? Also, some libertarians believe all of the environment should be privatised including the the atmosphere(partially to limit pollution). Why don't you agree? Finally, what are your thoughts on Milton Friedman's(a libertarian) negative income tax proposal?
Ragbralbur
15-12-2005, 02:37
Congress has the job of regulating commerce--if that doesn't equate to running the economy, then what does?
And if this suggestion would be helpful for the average person, I would support it, but I don't think that it is.

Minimum wage acts in the economy the same way as any price floor. Look at it this way:

If your labour is worth more than minimum wage, you make that much anyway.
If your labour is worth minimum wage, you make that much anyway.
If your labour is worth less than minimum wage, you make nothing because no business will hire you.

Who exactly does minimum wage help? All those with jobs right now would have those jobs at those wages anyway without minimum wage.
The Cat-Tribe
15-12-2005, 02:46
All the theoretical discussion is very nice, but it ignores the reality of The Nazz's original post.

The minimum wage was supposed to provide a living wage for American families. The Fair Labor Standards Act expressly states that its purpose is "the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers." FLSA (http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/statutes/whd/FairLaborStandAct.pdf), Sec 2(a).

Since it was enacted in 1938, the minimum wage has been increased regularly -- often yearly -- to keep up with increases in the cost of living. chart (http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/chart.htm) But the minimum wage hasn't increased since 1997. See id.

The $5.15 that the minimum wage was set at in 1997 equals $6.25 in 2005. link (http://www.aier.org/cgi-aier/colcalculator.cgi)

Thus, the minimum wage has not kept up with the cost of living. The minimum wage, therefore, does not serve its purpose unless it is increased!!

(This also impacts the "jobs will be lost" argument. Other costs for employers have increased with the cost of living, but employers have been able to buy labor on the cheap. Current prices should accomodate a higher minimum wage and same employment rate.)
Gymoor II The Return
15-12-2005, 02:47
http://www.taxpayer.net/TCS/wastebasket/budget/2003-07-03taxes.htm

In 2000-the year of the most recent IRS figures-2,328 taxpayers with incomes over $200,000 avoided paying federal income taxes completely. In 1977, there were just 60 taxpayers that weaseled their way out paying.

A reasonable response to these trends might be to close the loopholes which a fortunate few exploit to avoid paying an equitable share for government's costs. Instead, President Bush and Congress's tax plans have simply made it easier for the rich to get richer. Although the capital gains tax was decreased from 28 to 20 percent in 1997, this year they cut it again to 15 percent. They also lowered the dividend tax to 15 percent. According to a New York Times analysis of the I.R.S. numbers, the top 400 would have a 17.5 percent tax rate if the Bush tax cuts were applied today.

http://www.taxpayer.net/TCS/wastebasket/budget/01-18-02enron.htm
The New York Times recently reported that for four out of the past five years Enron has not paid a dime in federal income taxes. To add insult to injury, Enron actually received a $382 million refund check. Last year, most individual taxpayers thought they were lucky to have received a $300 rebate check in the mail - this is outrageous!

Enron was not alone in their avoidance of paying taxes. An Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy study of Fortune 500 companies found that 24 companies paid less than zero in federal income taxes in 1998.

http://www.taxpayer.net/TCS/wastebasket/budget/07-03-02corporatetax.htm
Benefits for relocation have been substantial. Tyco International, a manufacturing company, saved $400 million and Ingersoll-Rand saved $40 million last year by moving to the sunny islands. Enron had 800 faux-businesses set up in offshore havens to avoid millions in taxes. In this time of growing federal debt and spending, while the nation spends tens of billions of dollars to protect us from terrorism, these corporate deadbeat dads are shirking their responsibilities.

While many corporations would have us believe that the cost of taxes is ridiculously high, U.S. corporate tax rates as part of the G.D.P are actually one of the lowest in the world. The real ridiculous part is that millions of individual Americans are paying more taxes each year than some of the wealthiest corporations in the country.

http://www.taxpayer.net/TCS/wastebasket/budget/2003-01-17xferpricing.htm

Between 1998 and 2001, the federal treasury lost out on more than $175 billion in tax revenue when parent companies hid profits by exaggerating the prices at which they traded goods with their foreign subsidiaries.

Boo hoo! The rich are so mistreated! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
The Cat-Tribe
15-12-2005, 02:49
And if this suggestion would be helpful for the average person, I would support it, but I don't think that it is.

Minimum wage acts in the economy the same way as any price floor. Look at it this way:

If your labour is worth more than minimum wage, you make that much anyway.
If your labour is worth minimum wage, you make that much anyway.
If your labour is worth less than minimum wage, you make nothing because no business will hire you.

Who exactly does minimum wage help? All those with jobs right now would have those jobs at those wages anyway without minimum wage.

Sure because the economy -- particularly regarding labor rates -- works perfectly. So there is no need for the 67-year old minimum wage statute or any other business regulation. :rolleyes: :headbang:
Gymoor II The Return
15-12-2005, 02:54
Sure because the economy -- particularly regarding labor rates -- works perfectly. So there is no need for the 67-year old minimum wage statute or any other business regulation. :rolleyes: :headbang:

Yeah! Let's get rid of worker safety laws too!

And since labor is so cheap in 3rd world nations, why not make the U.S. just like a 3rd world nation while we're at it. Their economies are certainly booming. Costa Rica must be a paradise for workers. China? A paragon of freedom. I'm sure Indonesian children appreciate the fact that they can get easy employment any time they'd like it due to inexpensive labor.
Ragbralbur
15-12-2005, 03:04
Sure because the economy -- particularly regarding labor rates -- works perfectly. So there is no need for the 67-year old minimum wage statute or any other business regulation. :rolleyes: :headbang:
I never said that I did not support other labour initiatives, unions, etc. I just said that in this case, I'm not sure the minimum wage does as much good as we give it credit for.

Yeah! Let's get rid of worker safety laws too!

And since labor is so cheap in 3rd world nations, why not make the U.S. just like a 3rd world nation while we're at it. Their economies are certainly booming. Costa Rica must be a paradise for workers. China? A paragon of freedom. I'm sure Indonesian children appreciate the fact that they can get easy employment any time they'd like it due to inexpensive labor.
That's another thing I didn't say. Surely you realize though that many policies that keep our workers getting a regular wage do so at the expense of all those people suffering in Costa Rica, China and Indonesia. We keep our voters happy by keeping the rest of the world poor.

I'm all for safety regulations, environmental regulations, unions etc. Basically, I'm in favour of internalizing the externalities that businesses incur. At the same time, I'm just not sure that the minimum wage is the cure-all for poverty that its name seems to imply.
Equus
15-12-2005, 03:06
This is a tangent, but I got interested in "poverty levels" because of some statements made a while back. If anyone else is interested, here is an article published by the (admittedly right wing) Fraser Institute (although this particular article seemed very balanced and objective even to my lefty tastes). Information about how poverty rates are determined in both US and Canada, as well as a "better way" of determining poverty rates are discussed. Incidentally, this article pegs poverty rates in Canada at 8%, adjusted upward from the previous 5% because of changes in how the author felt that poverty rates should be determined.

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=216

By the way, the author of this paper argues that guarnateed minimum incomes for all would be more efficient and less expensive than other forms of social saftey nets, such as minimum wages, employment insurance, or welfare.
Gymoor II The Return
15-12-2005, 03:09
I never said that I did not support other labour initiatives, unions, etc. I just said that in this case, I'm not sure the minimum wage does as much good as we give it credit for.

What I AM sure is that it doesn't cause the employment damage that certain conservative/pro big business-types would have us believe.
The Cat-Tribe
15-12-2005, 03:10
I never said that I did not support other labour initiatives, unions, etc. I just said that in this case, I'm not sure the minimum wage does as much good as we give it credit for.

That's another thing I didn't say. Surely you realize though that many policies that keep our workers getting a regular wage do so at the expense of all those people suffering in Costa Rica, China and Indonesia. We keep our voters happy by keeping the rest of the world poor.

I'm all for safety regulations, environmental regulations, unions etc. Basically, I'm in favour of internalizing the externalities that businesses incur. At the same time, I'm just not sure that the minimum wage is the cure-all for poverty that its name seems to imply.

Nice job of backing away from your original argument. I wouldn't defend it either.
Ragbralbur
15-12-2005, 03:13
What I AM sure is that it doesn't cause the employment damage that certain conservative/pro big business-types would have us believe.
Do I have to read the sixteen pages to find out?

Anyway, minimum is a small drop in a very big bucket, which is why its effects are barely noticed. I'd happily accept it if it meant we could move towards other initiatives that actually do create sustainable jobs, like liberalization of trade. I'm just saying that the economics behind the minimum wage laws appears to be faulty. Maybe someday we'll find a better way of addressing working poverty than the minimum wage, but I'm certainly not losing sleep over its existence. There's only so much political willpower in our countries, and I wouldn't waste it fighting for such a miniscule issue. Give them the wage increase.
Gymoor II The Return
15-12-2005, 03:29
Do I have to read the sixteen pages to find out?


Why not? I read every page of every thread I post to (unless they're fluff threads like "which NS poster is the dreamiest?*")

*me
Ragbralbur
15-12-2005, 03:31
Why not? I read every page of every thread I post to (unless they're fluff threads like "which NS poster is the dreamiest?*")
But Die Hard 2 is on TV...
Demented Hamsters
15-12-2005, 03:32
There is a direct correlation to the increase in minimum wage and unemployement. South Africa, with one of the highest minimum wages in the world suffers from 30-40% unemployement given the area. Minimum wage laws causes a deadweight loss in society for those people that would be willing to work for less but legally cannot. Furthermore it affects teenagers and minorities disproportionately because they are more likely to be unskilled and therefore layed off. So, in a sense it is a discriminatory measure.
Great work there. You use one example of a horribly fucked up economy and society that's third-world in many areas to prove your point. Very selective.

I know! Why don't you use New Zealand as an example of how dreadful raising the minimum wage is?

Oh, right. That's because in the last 5 years they've raised the minimum wage from $6.00 p/hour to $10 p/hour and seen inflation drop to under 2% and unemployment fall to a 30yr low (under 3%).

So I guess we can't use that country, can we? Best to stick to seriously screwed up third-world African countries and ignore the others.