Jump to content

Minimum wage. Should it be $15?


mustang guy

Recommended Posts

 

And why you want to keep bringing politics into an economic discussion is a window into your brain.

I realize that's a forbidden thing somewhat around here so sorry for that, but to be honest, this entire thing is political, the whole debate is driven by one party. The areas who have implemented this are primarily controlled by one party. The governors and mayors who are pushing it are from one party. Seattle. New York. San Francisco. These are all associated with one party. The media outlets who push the idea aren't exactly Fox News. Just a guess but I'm thinking most likely the workers who are most vocal about wanting this typically vote in the same fashion. Sorry to sound like it did but I don't think that politics and the $15 minimum wage can be separated, it's too one sided.

 

 

 

 

You don’t have to bash any political party or mention any political party by name in the discussion when only talking about your ideology and your anecdotal situations such as the trampolines that support your belief.  I believe having 5,000 posts allows you to access a special place where politics can be dragged in as much as you want.  _ crazy.gif

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

post-36163-0-98020000-1446852511.gif

Edited by Fjd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My serious and non-political questions to the fans of the idea:

1. At what point do you differentiate between an evil large company who is exploiting workers, and a small business owner who may be significantly harmed by doubling what they pay? Or do you differentiate in the first place? Or do you even care about this?

2. What are you going to do when prices increase, everybody's salaries across the board changes, and we're back to where we started?

3. Basic economic sense should tell you that this will accelerate inflation. How do you plan to combat it?

4. Those that make minimum wage now basically pay no income taxes. Is it ok with you if we start making them pay if we double what they make?

5. How do you differentiate between uber-expensive cities and isolated rural communities? Why do you think that somebody in Podunkville should be paid the same as someone doing the same job in downtown Seattle if we're going to be paid based on "living wages"? Do you grasp the idea of varying cost of living based on location? Even with a good middle class job, you'd have to make over twice as much in San Francisco as rural Kentucky just to break even. The less you make the worse this is because rent is ridiculous.

6. If you increase their salary, the amount of subsidies they receive for Obamacare will drop, so they'll have to pay more in. This may be good for the government, but if you combine this with actually having to pay income taxes, I mean, you do realize they may not be as well off as they think, right? What are you going to do when they realize that $15 after taxes and Obamacare ain't quite $15?

7. Based on #6, you do realize that this isn't going to make them free and clear of government subsidies right? $15 an hour is touted as the solution for this but you're still subsidized at that point. I think you have to make 400% the poverty level to not be subsidized, which, is over $94,000 a year. So if this is the goal, why aren't we asking for $46 an hour minimum wage? Why settle on $15 if you're still going to be propped up by the government at that level?

Edited by MetropolisLakeOutfitters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every one of your questions relate to the mechanism I referred to.  These are issues which should be discussed and negotiated.  That's what freedom in this country is all about.  I'll give you a pass on the inflation comment, since Friedman's equation is more complicated and in my opinion more accurate than the Keynesian one you imply, to be a point of further discussion.

 

I try not to think in either/or terms, as so many have been mentally trained.

Edited by oldtimer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Fairness and morals has nothing to do with it. You're paid what you're worth.

 

Interesting observation.  Just what is a human worth?

 

Dave

 

 

 

 

In the “Fatalities” report, Ford engineers estimated the cost of technical improvements that would prevent gas tanks from leaking in rollover accidents to be $11 per vehicle. The authors go on to discuss various estimates of the number of people killed by fires from car rollovers before settling on the relatively low figure of 180 deaths per year. But given that number, how can the value of those individuals’ lives be gauged?

 

Can a dollars-and-cents figure be assigned to a human being? NHTSA thought so. In 1972, it estimated that society loses $200,725 every time a person is killed in an auto accident (adjusted for inflation, today’s figure would, of course, be considerably higher).

 

 

http://philosophia.uncg.edu/phi361-metivier/module-2-why-does-business-need-ethics/case-the-ford-pinto/

 

 

In some respects, it appears that Ford waited eight years because its internal "cost-benefit analysis," which places a dollar value on human life, said it wasn't profitable to make the changes sooner. :wacko:  I fully realize that corporations function to make a profit; however, where is the line drawn regarding the duty and responsibility toward society?

Edited by Fjd
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the “Fatalities” report, Ford engineers estimated the cost of technical improvements that would prevent gas tanks from leaking in rollover accidents to be $11 per vehicle. The authors go on to discuss various estimates of the number of people killed by fires from car rollovers before settling on the relatively low figure of 180 deaths per year. But given that number, how can the value of those individuals’ lives be gauged?

 

Can a dollars-and-cents figure be assigned to a human being? NHTSA thought so. In 1972, it estimated that society loses $200,725 every time a person is killed in an auto accident (adjusted for inflation, today’s figure would, of course, be considerably higher).

 

 

http://philosophia.uncg.edu/phi361-metivier/module-2-why-does-business-need-ethics/case-the-ford-pinto/

 

 

In some respects, it appears that Ford waited eight years because its internal "cost-benefit analysis," which places a dollar value on human life, said it wasn't profitable to make the changes sooner. :wacko:  I fully realize that corporations function to make a profit; however, where is the line drawn regarding the duty and responsibility toward society?

That sounds exactly like something from Tyler Durden out of Fight Club.

Edited by MetropolisLakeOutfitters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe instead of calling it a "minimum wage", which basicallyis your employer saying "I'd pay you less if I could, so I could make more- but it's illegal, so here's the least amount I can give you."

To calling it a "living wage" Where your efforts with a company that are necessary, even if it's "just flipping burgers", are rewarded with a wage that allows you to pay rent and afford to put food on your table and pay to go to school to better yourself.

The way I see it, minimum wage is a dead end life, very few make it out.

And think of it this way too... If everyone on this thread has a let's say... 50,000 income. We could all live comfortably. We could have a modest house, a decent car, and put food on the table. And all of us could still enjoy this speaker hobby... And stimulate all of the businesses with this hobby.

Now, If all of us only made 15,000 a year.... None of us could pay the rent, and food, and maybe go to a community college to get the night shift manager job at burger world. (Moving up!! Yeah right) - and none of us could afford these awesome speaker setups. BUT the one ceo could afford to. But can he realistically purchase as much as all of us would? Would he really need 10,000 speakers? And Amps, and cables?

The masses support the economy. And when all of it goes to a select few... Nothing will ever change.

In my business, I wish more people had better wages , because then they could purchase my services. Instead- I rely on the elites to come and see me.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Like it or not, the primary role of government is to manage the creation of, and DISTRIBUTE WEALTH by making rules. "

Like it or not, the primary role of a SOCIALIST government is to manage the creation of, and DISTRIBUTE WEALTH by making rules."

Fixed it for you.

 

No, it has nothing to do with socialism at all. All governments create regulation, legislation, courts, and policy over land, resources, business rules and taxes, and that is how wealth is distributed - by those rules and accommodations. The FAA, the FTC, the FDA. the USDA, The Federal Reserve, and many other bureaus makes the rules for the various businesses. For example, I can't start selling a cancer drug until approved by the FDA. That STEERS cancer drug wealth to the companies who can afford to gain approval. You see that, right? That's how it all works. These policies are all functions of government. They steer the wealth and resources. Pipelines have to be approved, world trade agreements, banking regulations, insurance regulations - all of it is "government policy."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This is a far more complicated subject than you portray it to be. Those that are showing up the wealthiest list aren't sitting on $50 billion is cash. That might be their net worth, but it's tied up in all sorts of business ventures, bonds, stockholdings, etc... And that is, I might add, how they got onto that list to begin with: by taking the money they earned and putting it to work for them, and then taking those profits and putting those to work to make even more.

And to address your assertion that corps are sitting on piles of cash. Yes. They are. But for reasons far different than you believe. It certainly has very little to do with not having a place to put it to make it useful and more to do with being uncertain about global outlooks and therefore, they would rather keep their powder dry than expose it to risk. I'm sure you've noticed, things are not as healthy as they are portrayed. Corporations know this better than anyone.

 

 

Things not healthy? Check the S&P 500 please. Check the record levels of corporate profits. They are at all time highs. The money is not being invested because they can't find a useful place to invest it. Why? Because until demand increases, there's no need for more production capacity. Sure, companies hold back some cash for future risk, but $3 Trillion is way, WAY more than needed for that. They have the $3T because they have been able to squeeze wages down to very low levels. That's possible only due to world trade agreements which create surplus labor in the high wage countries. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

3) More devious and crooked;

This is a very telling statement about how you perceive the rich. I notice you made no reference to dedication. I know many very rich people who work 'round the clock. Whether it's on the phone, in a boardroom, on a private jet, or from their bed. Sure, they aren't digging a ditch, but that's because their too smart for that. But also, it isn't because they are more devious or crooked.

 

 

That's one of the four circumstances I mentioned. The point was this: it's not from working harder in very many cases. Just in the 2008 banking crisis there may be been as many as 1,000 prosecutions IF the DOJ had not been pulled back from prosecuting. In the 80s S&L swindle, about 800 were prosecuted, and this was way bigger than that. Just because they weren't prosecuted doesn't mean they weren't crooks.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Fifty years ago the "wealth pie" was $21 and split in a manner of CEO $20 and median workers $1. Today the $301 of the "wealth pie" is now split CEO $300 and median workers still $1.

And this is immoral and nothing but greed run amuck.

I don't care who you is you ain't worth $100 million a year, sorry your job is not 2 thousand times harder than mine.

Just my $.02

 

 

 

 

Just a very simplistic example if you take the "wage/salary/benefits" as a "pool of funds" in a corporate budget to be divided and distributed amongst everyone in the corporation. 

 

It makes sense why the NFL players association will bargain for wages to be a percentage of the gross revenues.  We also know that it is very lucrative to be an NFL owner even with roughly 2/3 of the total NFL revenues going to the players and having a wage structure with a minimum salary for the players that increases each year.

 

I find it interesting that in the 1970's Peter F. Drucker (during this time, a well-respected American management guru) had endorsed the 20 to 1 ratio for CEO to median worker in sustaining robust growth.  Up until this time the U.S. was very prosperous with this 20 to 1 ratio, yet, look where we are today.  A survey of the S&P 500 index companies, during 2012 the compensation received by the CEO was 354 times that of the median of the rank-and-file worker and look at the general downward trends in prosperity.

 

 

 

_ _ CEO pay - worker pay.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

I agree with your point, but it's not actually "CEOs" which are the trouble. It's the billionaires who often are just speculators, hedge fund runners, and raiders, where most of the wealth is going. Not to minimize the CEO pay, but making $50M a year isn't the troouble spot. It's he guy making $2B a year through other means, which is the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did the survey, and wish I'd simply copied my "comments" section to paste here.

 

Basically, I said the minimum wage should be raised to a point that fully covered an individual's needs to be above the poverty level...maybe even at least two covered by one.  Reasoning is that we pay for welfare for those below the line anyway and it's filtered through an expensive bureaucracy.  Prices would rise to cover an increased minimum wage...but it would be direct aid rather than bureaucratic so far more efficient.

 

Open to comments on that as I'd never seriously thought about it before and that is the result of doing so.

 

Dave

 

Well said. However, we actually have almost no welfare. 

 

I mentioned the punishment philosophy in the USA. It's a strict "dog eat dog" ethic. Now, in Switzerland, they recently voted to giver every citizen a guaranteed base income. A perfectly sensible solution, and one which emphasizes rewards, not punishment, as the basis of citizenship. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...