The Minimum Wage

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

secretaries, brewers, teachers, truckers don't earn minimum wage

they will when it's $17/hr.

Quote

OTOH, it's terrible for anyone in the middle class with savings, and low debt.

This is a very important point. If anyone thinks there's an unhealthy deterioration of the middle class in this country then they should understand that the fastest way to just wipe it out completely would be to double the minimum wage.

Quote

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

The cost of what he believes everyone should be able to afford, what else? This is why I asked straight out in post #32 what he thinks society should guarantee everyone is able to afford.

[ridestrong 1]

Quote

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. )

The best way to decrease the debt of the poor is to not give them credit, therefore making them live within their means. Giving the poor more money in no way guaranties that they will have less debt.

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

[yourmomma 0]

I am surprised that you have taken up the tactics of those with whom you normally argue. Not only is it a stretch to argue the US economy was the dominate economy in 1937, its absolutely disingenuous to suggest that the bubbling resentment of the poor(which was a far greater % of the population than after the war when the middle class was invented) did not result in a minimum wage in the form of unions. Every time the rich get richer while thumbing their nose at the poor, they end up regretting not sharing the minimal bit of pie required to make the masses happy. That shit ain't socialism it's the cost of doing business.

[billvon 2,476]

>I am surprised that you have taken up the tactics of those with whom you
>normally argue.

Who are " those with whom you normally argue?" Capitalists? Republicans? 9/11 truthers?

>Not only is it a stretch to argue the US economy was the dominate economy in 1937 . . .

OK. Whose was larger at that point?

> its absolutely disingenuous to suggest that the bubbling resentment of
>the poor(which was a far greater % of the population than after the war
>when the middle class was invented) did not result in a minimum wage in
>the form of unions.

In that case we have unions, and thus do not need additional minimum wage laws.

>Every time the rich get richer while thumbing their nose at the poor, they
>end up regretting not sharing the minimal bit of pie required to make the
>masses happy.

The rich get richer generally by giving people jobs. Thus it gets shared. Not as equally as many would like, but far more than it would be if they were not allowed to become rich to begin with. How many people can a company that is not allowed to grow hire?

[ridestrong 1]

Quote

>I am surprised that you have taken up the tactics of those with whom you
>normally argue.

Who are " those with whom you normally argue?" Capitalists? Republicans? 9/11 truthers?

>Not only is it a stretch to argue the US economy was the dominate economy in 1937 . . .

OK. Whose was larger at that point?

> its absolutely disingenuous to suggest that the bubbling resentment of
>the poor(which was a far greater % of the population than after the war
>when the middle class was invented) did not result in a minimum wage in
>the form of unions.

In that case we have unions, and thus do not need additional minimum wage laws.

>Every time the rich get richer while thumbing their nose at the poor, they
>end up regretting not sharing the minimal bit of pie required to make the
>masses happy.

The rich get richer generally by giving people jobs. Thus it gets shared. Not as equally as many would like, but far more than it would be if they were not allowed to become rich to begin with. How many people can a company that is not allowed to grow hire?

+1

word to yourmomma...

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

[yourmomma 0]

1)Yes
2)Google- sterling bloc economies.
3)All the right to be fired states require other methods.
4)You are absolutly right. The rich in america employ 10's of millions of chinese.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

4)You are absolutly right. The rich in america employ 10's of millions of chinese.

Because the American minimum wage laws put a price on un-skilled and sem-skilled labor that's higher than its value while the Chinese don't.

You can hire semi-skilled labor in China for $150/month. Minimum wage here is $1160/month and you have to pay overtime on top of that.

[yourmomma 0]

HAHA, you are right and we will see how long it lasts. If you don't think the chinese government is absolutely terrified of its enormous under class, you haven't ever been to china. They continually lower the bar for the middle class as a means of empowering the poor. While allowing the those in power to achieve more. This is why they have citizens who will work for the wage. When $150 a month makes you middle class it isn't capitalism.

[billvon 2,476]

>4)You are absolutly right. The rich in america employ 10's of millions of chinese.

Agreed, as do the middle class and poor. (If you doubt this visit any Wal-Mart and note who the shoppers are.) Personally I'd rather they be employing Americans - but minimum wage laws make that a losing proposition. Which is why China will soon eclipse us as an economic power.

[yourmomma 0]

WTF, I would expect that response from a conservative. Minimum wage laws don't inhibit the hiring of americans, greed does. The desire to maximize the bottom line today trumps the long term sensibility in doing so. Greed has destroyed us and will destroy china. This pattern has remained unaltered since it's (or maybe our) inception.

[ridestrong 1]

Quote

WTF, I would expect that response from a conservative. Minimum wage laws don't inhibit the hiring of americans, greed does. The desire to maximize the bottom line today trumps the long term sensibility in doing so. Greed has destroyed us and will destroy china. This pattern has remained unaltered since it's (or maybe our) inception.

Can I have your rig? Assuming you own one that is...

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

[billvon 2,476]

>WTF, I would expect that response from a conservative.

Sorry, my positions may confuse you then, as I don't really feel any allegiance to either side.

>Minimum wage laws don't inhibit the hiring of americans

Of course they do. If your business is about to go bankrupt, and you have a choice between spending $100,000 on your factory labor or $1 million, and the bank will only give you $150,000 in loans - which labor source do you choose?

>greed does.

Right. Capitalism is basically greed.

>Greed has destroyed us and will destroy china.

Greed is why people want minimum wage laws. Basically, they want more than their labor is valued. It's also why companies hire the people who are the most valuable i.e. do the most for the least money. If you pass a law requiring labor in the US to be less valuable it will be used less.

[yourmomma 0]

"Greed is why people want minimum wage laws. Basically, they want more than their labor is valued. It's also why companies hire the people who are the most valuable i.e. do the most for the least money. If you pass a law requiring labor in the US to be less valuable it will be used less."

I reckon were going to have to agree to disagree about what exactly defines greed.

[billvon 2,476]

>I reckon were going to have to agree to disagree about what exactly
>defines greed.

A personal desire for more than what is needed or deserved. If you have minimal talent and you want more money for the same minimal labor, that's an example of greed.

[yourmomma 0]

I've got a cruiselite, fingertraped line cascades, tailgate and slidergate, on a handmade rig patterned off a perigee. Its been in the water no more than once I swear. The canopy does have a couple of patches due to a tree landing (which sucks cause its integral risers). Other than that its a tits rig. New velcro in 05! I'm a bit greedy so I won't give it to you but I will let you have it for 3 g's. Packjob included.

[ridestrong 1]

Quote

I've got a cruiselite, fingertraped line cascades, tailgate and slidergate, on a handmade rig patterned off a perigee. Its been in the water no more than once I swear. The canopy does have a couple of patches due to a tree landing (which sucks cause its integral risers). Other than that its a tits rig. New velcro in 05! I'm a bit greedy so I won't give it to you but I will let you have it for 3 g's. Packjob included.

damn... I guess the hook I was using was too shinny.

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

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

HAHA, you are right and we will see how long it lasts.

It will last until the real costs of labor decrease in the US and increase in China until they meet.

Hopefully we'll still have relatively pleasant living conditions when that happens.

Quote

When $150 a month makes you middle class it isn't capitalism.

"Middle class" means that food and shelter are no longer issues and you're starting to spend money on leisure, owning real-estate, and automobiles.

$500-$750 a month is middle class in China, enough to be shopping at places like IKEA.

Obviously, food (labor) and housing (labor to build it) have to cost a lot less for those dollar amouns to be sustainable.

$150 a month is poor, just like the US $1160 a month minimum wage.

Unskilled laborers making $150 a month are pure capitalism - workers selling their services for market value.

[yourmomma 0]

Being paid what you deserve is not greed. Until the chinese or indians get the technology to hand me my happy meal in Iowa, the american doing the work deserves a pay commensurate to the first world country we live. Just because a person has "limited talent" does not mean his/her importance to the bottom line is diminished. Another words how successful is the bean counter when there is no one of "limited talent" to take my order.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Being paid what you deserve is not greed. Until the chinese or indians get the technology to hand me my happy meal in Iowa, the american doing the work deserves a pay commensurate to the first world country we live.

With machines made in China you don't need any Chinese in Iowa.

Most grocery stores and Home Depots have replaced 4 checkers with a set of 4 self-serviced machines supervised by a single employee.

The same sort of thing can happen to fast food.

Quote

Just because a person has "limited talent" does not mean his/her importance to the bottom line is diminished. Another words how successful is the bean counter when there is no one of "limited talent" to take my order.

There's some amount of money people are willing to spend on "fast food"

Where it gets too expensive they'll find market alternatives (making their own lunch, getting tacos for $1.25 from the family owned Tacqueria or Carniceria, or deciding that the price difference for good food is no longer interesting) which put the burger barons and their flippers out of business.

[billvon 2,476]

>Being paid what you deserve is not greed.

Being paid what your work is valued by the market is not greed. Wanting more than that without doing anything to get it is greed.

>Just because a person has "limited talent" does not mean his/her
>importance to the bottom line is diminished.

It absolutely is. Would you hire an illiterate man to write ads for your company? If so you would soon no longer have a company, and someone better at choosing their labor would replace you.

>Until the chinese or indians get the technology to hand me my happy
>meal in Iowa, the american doing the work deserves a pay
>commensurate to the first world country we live.

You could argue that he deserves not to starve to death. Here in the US, he will not; he will be able to eat well on less than the current minimum wage. He does not deserve a brand new car, a big screen HDTV and a luxurious apartment. If you think he does, then by all means, buy him those things and put your money where your mouth is.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

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. )

The best way to decrease the debt of the poor is to not give them credit, therefore making them live within their means. Giving the poor more money in no way guaranties that they will have less debt.

The devaluation of the dollar is what decreases their debt in real terms. So yes, giving them more money means their existing debts decrease, even presuming they continue to behave in the same way as before.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

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,

agreed. what i'm proposing is getting the minimum wage back to its historical value
(then the economy won't crash - like it just did)

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

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

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!

depends upon how long those couple take to get work. remember the process will take a few years. the extra wages the others now earn will come round/be spent a lot faster than it does from the banks

Quote

The velocity of money (also called velocity of circulation) is the average frequency with which a unit of money is spent in a specific period of time. Velocity associates the amount of economic activity associated with a given money supply. When the period is understood, the velocity may be present as a pure number; otherwise it should be given as a pure number over time. In the equation of exchange, velocity of money is one of the variables claimed to determine inflation.

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

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

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

How doe you propose "holding the value?".

you then index the minimum wage to inflation

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

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

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.

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.

i thought i'd already said that
(do it steadily and the economy can be rebalanced through the value of labour rather than tax rises)

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