The Minimum Wage

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

>not saying tripling - just doubling. then hold the value against inflation

Doubling wages would cause rapid inflation, since average income is a primary driver of inflation. Prices would rise since many people could now afford more pricey goods. This would reduce their purchasing power, so you'd have to double wages again. This process is called "the price/wage spiral."

doubling the minimum wage over a few years starting $7,9,11,13,15 to possibly $17 won't lead to a price/wage spiral
(the result will be increased productivity and less need for tax rises)

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

True! If that's a solution, though, then an even easier solution is to cut people's wages and just let _them_ borrow. They will then have all the money they need.

that's what's just happened - duh.

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[billvon 2,476]

>doubling the minimum wage over a few years starting $7,9,11,13,
>15 to possibly $17 won't lead to a price/wage spiral.

Sure it would. Manufacturers will raise prices because a) they can; people can afford to pay more and b) they have to; their products now cost more to make (more money in salaries.)

>(the result will be increased productivity and less need for tax rises)

You really think a UPS worker will be able to lift twice as much if you pay him twice as much? Brewers will ferment their beer in half the time if you double their salaries? Secretaries will type at 200 words per minute if you double their wages? Teachers will be able to teach two semesters worth of material in one semester if only you pay them enough? Truckers will deliver twice their current load?

In that case I propose an even easier solution. Pay them double the per-hour rate and have them work 20 hour weeks. The companies then pay the same rate per year, as much works gets done, and the person either has the option to take lots of time off (at the same pay) or work 40 hours a week and make twice as much. Everyone wins.

[billvon 2,476]

>that's what's just happened - duh.

Cool. Then problem solved. That was easy.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

>that's what's just happened - duh.

Cool. Then problem solved. That was easy.

and the result is a nasty national deficit
(could dig that hole even bigger i suppose)

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[billvon 2,476]

>and the result is a nasty national deficit

Well, there's a bit of a difference between the national deficit and a person's (or company's) private debt. But you're right, there are problems when anyone, private or corporate, borrows money without being able to pay it back.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

>doubling the minimum wage over a few years starting $7,9,11,13,
>15 to possibly $17 won't lead to a price/wage spiral.

Sure it would. Manufacturers will raise prices because a) they can; people can afford to pay more and b) they have to; their products now cost more to make (more money in salaries.)

>(the result will be increased productivity and less need for tax rises)

You really think a UPS worker will be able to lift twice as much if you pay him twice as much? Brewers will ferment their beer in half the time if you double their salaries? Secretaries will type at 200 words per minute if you double their wages? Teachers will be able to teach two semesters worth of material in one semester if only you pay them enough? Truckers will deliver twice their current load?

companies won't raise their prices or they'll go out of business - they'll steadily improve the productivity of their workers instead
(secretaries, brewers, teachers, truckers don't earn minimum wage)

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[billvon 2,476]

>companies won't raise their prices or they'll go out of business . . .

Why? If everyone can afford higher prices, companies will definitely raise their prices. Why wouldn't they? If you were a rigger, and you realized that just as many people will use you if you charge twice as much - why wouldn't you charge twice as much? Especially since if you have an assistant you now have to pay them twice as much.

>(secretaries, brewers, teachers, truckers don't earn minimum wage)

OK. In that case, you think McDonald's workers will cook burgers twice as fast if you pay them twice as much?

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

>doubling the minimum wage over a few years starting $7,9,11,13,
>15 to possibly $17 won't lead to a price/wage spiral.

Sure it would. Manufacturers will raise prices because a) they can; people can afford to pay more and b) they have to; their products now cost more to make (more money in salaries.)

>(the result will be increased productivity and less need for tax rises)

You really think a UPS worker will be able to lift twice as much if you pay him twice as much? Brewers will ferment their beer in half the time if you double their salaries? Secretaries will type at 200 words per minute if you double their wages? Teachers will be able to teach two semesters worth of material in one semester if only you pay them enough? Truckers will deliver twice their current load?

companies won't raise their prices or they'll go out of business - they'll steadily improve the productivity of their workers instead
(secretaries, brewers, teachers, truckers don't earn minimum wage)

they will when it's $17/hr.

--
Rob

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Doubling wages would cause rapid inflation, since average income is a primary driver of inflation. Prices would rise since many people could now afford more pricey goods. This would reduce their purchasing power, so you'd have to double wages again. This process is called "the price/wage spiral."

If you do it enough times, the economy crashes, all those that are retired or are very rich (i.e., they pay wages, rather than earn wages) end up with about the same amount of worthless wealth as all the rest 'caught up' to them.

Then everyone is equally poor and starving.

That's the plan anyway.

Then we burn cash for heat and return to a barter system.

It's really very simple.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

I never understood why it is politically palatable to pay MORONS to have more children. Tax breaks for more than 2 children????

Parents aside, the 3rd-and-later kids are innocent: they didn't ask to be born, and can't fend for themselves. More money staying in the family puts more food in those kids' mouths.

...and more fat kids!


Chuck

[masterrig 1]

Oh, well. In that case, we should process all confiscated children into food for the rest of us. The devil's in the details, of course; but damn, the idea's infallible.

No, you confiscate the adults and feed them to them to the others, The confiscated children are a food delicacy and sold at a premium to pay for the whole operation. [/repl

... it's called 're-cycling'.


Chuck

[ridestrong 1]

Quote

companies won't raise their prices or they'll go out of business - they'll steadily improve the productivity of their workers instead

Improved productivity doesn't mean increased demand... so since 3 employees can now do the work 5 were doing before they can lay-off a couple of people and still meet their demand. Great idea!

*I am not afraid of dying... I am afraid of missing life.*
----Disclaimer: I don't know shit about skydiving.----

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Doubled? Why double it?

the value of labour needs to be increased to balance the economy out.

Balanced out against what? What must the "value or labour" be balanced against?

Further, all the minimum wage does is prescribe the "price" of labour - not the value of it. I can certainly price my services at $3,000.00 per hour. Pricing all lawyers at a minimum of $2,000.00 per hour would certainly seem to benefit attorneys. The problem is that nobody thinks that attorneys are worth that price. Just because an artificial price of $2k per hour is placed on me does not mean that it my value.

Want to increase the value of labor? Here's what you do - go hire labor at an inflated price.

You confuse "value" with "price."

Quote

doubling it should do the trick

What will be the ultimate goal?

And yes, "trick" is a fantastic word for it.

Quote

(not saying tripling - just doubling. then hold the value against inflation)

How doe you propose "holding the value?" By artificially limiting the price? "It costs $20.00 to produce and market each widget, of which $10.00 is the cost of labor, and $10.00 for materials, which is sold for $25.00. By increasing the labor cost to $20.00 (which will also increase the price of materials to more than $10.00 (the suppliers need to pay increased wages, too)) you've now brought unit cost up to over $30.00. So, do you plan on ensuring that the widget is sold at cost or at a loss?

Of course, the widget's value may be $25.00, and consumers will not pay $30.00 for a widget. Thus, sales plummet.

This will ensure either scarcity or widgets or surplus of widgets. Either way, unemployment and inflation are both going to increase.

Ever hear of the term, "misery index?" Unemployment plus inflation = misery index. If one wanted to increase inflation and unemployment, a damned good way of doing it is to artificially inflate wages. Look at the US economy now - we had a bubble that inflated the price of real estate. It pops, and the "price" of real estate then reflected the "value" or it.

So go ahead and price something for more than it is worth. Then there is a problem and you can blame corporations for massive layoffs and inflation.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,476]

>Of course, the widget's value may be $25.00, and consumers will not
>pay $30.00 for a widget. Thus, sales plummet.

I believe you are confusing "value" with "price." The value may not change even though the price goes up. As long as wages rise with prices, they will likely sell the same amount, since consumers can afford the higher price. (Of course that requires each dollar to be valued less, which is inflation in a nutshell.)

[lawrocket 3]

Maybe it's you or maybe it's me, but I thought I said that "value" and "price" are different - raising the price does not raise the value.

Quote

As long as wages rise with prices, they will likely sell the same amount, since consumers can afford the higher price. (Of course that requires each dollar to be valued less, which is inflation in a nutshell.)

This is also a good point. It seems to mean that the people who receive increased wages are not really any better off. The receive wage increases. Inflation occurs. And they are no better off.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

This is also a good point. It seems to mean that the people who receive increased wages are not really any better off. The receive wage increases. Inflation occurs. And they are no better off.

actually, it devalues the entire monetary pool - the hoped for effect is likely devaluing the assets of the rich in hope of a relative shift in value to those making the minimum wage

runaway inflation in effect - still the end goal can, at best, while everyone is miserable, the rich might be made a bit more miserable than the poor...????

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

actually, it devalues the entire monetary pool - the hoped for effect is likely devaluing the assets of the rich in hope of a relative shift in value to those making the minimum wage

Yes, and it decreases the debt of the poor. (Hmm...maybe DD is smarter than we give him credit for. )

OTOH, it's terrible for anyone in the middle class with savings, and low debt. While the rich give up some of their wealth, the middle ends up no better than the poor. They'll stop going to college when they can earn the same $17 at McDonald's.

[billvon 2,476]

>It seems to mean that the people who receive increased wages are not
>really any better off.

Not in the long term, but it makes people think they are better off in the short term.

[lawrocket 3]

Well, yes. I do believe that equal misery is a primary goal for all.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Right. Which actually sets them back even further in the long term because they think they have increased wealth that they don't really have.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[yourmomma 0]

"it devalues the entire monetary pool"

That's a good thing if you intend on creating jobs. A debasing dollar increases the cost of imports, while making our goods cheaper. The dollars strength in the last 20 years has destroyed more jobs than any government policy (min wage,right to be fired states, welfare systems), recession, housing bubble... you name it. A strong dollar creates cheap foreign labor. Simply put a devalued currency in a global market is a job creator. Also, unlike '30s Germany or Banana Republic's the US dollar is the world's reserve currency. In other words our debt is someone else's savings. To prevent taking losses foreign debt holders devalue their currency. Take a serious look around you, sovereign currencies are racing to the bottom in an effort to protect their savings. Additionally,The only country attempting to increase their peg to the dollar is China, China has ambitions of replacing the dollar as the reserve currency to that I say good luck, and good riddance. Nothing would change the minds of Americans and politicians on everything from energy consumption to education and entitlement spending faster then removing the golden goose. There currently is no other AAA rated market $12 Trillion dollars deep to absorb the worlds saving demand, and I welcome an alternative. China is the only nation strong enough to cut their losses and move on. American financial dominance is nearing its end because as a nation, we have become incompetent. Our competition was never the (D) to your left or the (R) to your right. Though both parties possess fat cats, the more conservative you are it seems, the fatter you like your cats.

[lawrocket 3]

The problem with increasing the minimum wage is that it affects unskilled labor. In terms of manufacturing it makes it less expensive to send the work overseas. Have China manufacture and ship it here.

It doesn't affect services. Unskilled labor in services leads to greater expense. This means that there is less manufacturing and an inflated service-based economy. So in terms of exports - well, our manufacturing base isn't there. Neither are the importers.

Devaluing the dollar has some merit but some problems, as well.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[yourmomma 0]

I must not have explained myself. Either you have the strongest economy and pay a minimum wage; or you don't have either. Otherwise its called having your cake and eating. History has taught us when this occurs individuals like Rush Limbagh are taught what class warfare really means.

[billvon 2,476]

>I must not have explained myself. Either you have the strongest
>economy and pay a minimum wage; or you don't have either.

The US arguably had the strongest economy in the world in 1937 - and no minimum wage. So there's a logical problem with your statement.