Minimum wage. Should it be $15?

[oldtimer]

 

 

Jeff see my post 249 and subsequent posts. One thing I have found in discussions like these going back decades is that on the one hand some will compare the US with the rest of the world and on the other hand others will say "I don't care about the rest of the world, I live in the US and I compare myself to the rest of the country."

For my purpose, I use comparison to other countries as an illustration that something is practical or possible. For example, our GINI is rather high (bad) compared with other developed countries. That says to me that we can engineer our GINI to a better number through some process. If one claims a great which had never been accomplished it losses credibility as an idea.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

 

 

The problem with the GINI is it can look good when everybody is equally poor and starving to death,  Sure, it measures distribution, and sure, in a land with our level of wealth, we can see that there can be a more equal distribution without the need for untold suffering.  That's all and well.  But it doesn't answer the magic question:  Will a lower GINI make us better-off on average?  Maybe; maybe not.  There is a lot to be said for wealth concentrations.  Even Alexis de Tocqueville commented briefly on it when he said great nations rise and become powerful as a result of concentrated wealth.  

 

There is that but throw out the obvious hell holes and focus on the developed nations with better GINI.  Perhaps there is something somewhere in there to learn and adapt?

[Jeff Matthews]

We have a lot to be thankful for.  It allows us to want and try to make the world even better.

 

 

Yeah.  We even have the luxury of debating about what it would take to make a better world... more money, more time, more love.  What could it be?  Maslow might have something to say on that.

[Jeff Matthews]

There is that but throw out the obvious hell holes and focus on the developed nations with better GINI.  Perhaps there is something somewhere in there to learn and adapt?

 

We certainly keep digging and comparing as if there is.  However, the more we learn about current events and issues in Europe, the less envious I am of it. 

[oldtimer]

 

We have a lot to be thankful for.  It allows us to want and try to make the world even better.

 

 

Yeah.  We even have the luxury of debating about what it would take to make a better world... more money, more time, more love.  What could it be?  Maslow might have something to say on that.

 

LOL.  It used to be called college.

[Jim Naseum]

Jeff see my post 249 and subsequent posts. One thing I have found in discussions like these going back decades is that on the one hand some will compare the US with the rest of the world and on the other hand others will say "I don't care about the rest of the world, I live in the US and I compare myself to the rest of the country."

For my purpose, I use comparison to other countries as an illustration that something is practical or possible. For example, our GINI is rather high (bad) compared with other developed countries. That says to me that we can engineer our GINI to a better number through some process. If one claims a great which had never been accomplished it losses credibility as an idea.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

The problem with the GINI is it can look good when everybody is equally poor and starving to death, Sure, it measures distribution, and sure, in a land with our level of wealth, we can see that there can be a more equal distribution without the need for untold suffering. That's all and well. But it doesn't answer the magic question: Will a lower GINI make us better-off on average? Maybe; maybe not. There is a lot to be said for wealth concentrations. Even Alexis de Tocqueville commented briefly on it when he said great nations rise and become powerful as a result of concentrated wealth.

Sure, I can agree that some concentration builds a kind of capital that is needed for big projects. Good point. Right now, most of our private capital can not be deployed, because there is no project with an ROI. I mentioned previously the $3 trillion which sits rotting in corporate coffers. That's very bad and indicative of radically wrong distribution. We need more consumption now, more spending, but wages are too low to provide that boost. Had some of that $3T gone for wages, we'd have better growth, more jobs.

Two facts describe the trouble: 28M jobless; $3T in unused capital. You can't invest with no demand, and you can't create demand without more spendable income.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Edited November 9, 2015 by jo56steph74

[Jim Naseum]

Mr. Jeff,

My argument isn't envy of Europe. I love where I live, it's home, it's comfortable, and even though I like travel, I like getting home too.

I was always a modernist though. It means find the best ideas, reject the status quo, move forward to the future through intelligence, rationality, science, and morality. I can't reject good ideas just because they are foreign, or untried, or even maybe previously failed for poor execution.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Jeff Matthews]

I can't reject good ideas just because they are foreign, or untried, or even maybe previously failed for poor execution.

 

 

Me, neither.  However, we usually hear about some notion that the grass is greener in Europe because they are more pro-labor, or they are more "this" or "that."  The implied assumption is that the grass is greener there.  The fact is we Americans who haven't lived there don't know all that much about it.  They hardly make any news that we hear over here.  But the news we have seen over recent years (especially since the post-extravagance collapse) tells me that the pastures over there are not as green as many would have led us to believe.  There appears to be little to want to emulate.

Edited November 9, 2015 by Jeff Matthews

[Marvel]

My wife would love $15 per hour, and she is working as a degreed professional and ha two staff working under her. Still beats being a cashier at Walmart.

Bruce

[Mallette]

My wife would love $15 per hour, and she is working as a degreed professional and ha two staff working under her. Still beats being a cashier at Walmart.

Bruce

In my opinion, the thread appears way off the original post.  The question is how do we pay for what we are already paying for one way or the other.  We either share to ensure that all have a basic living or we don't.  Either way we all pay.  What do we want for our money? 

 

Dave

[T2K]

Yeah, pay them more money. While we're at it we can double Social Security too since the elderly find themselves in the same position. Working folk can afford it, just take it out of day check, man. 

 

Keith

[Jim Naseum]

We've been discussing changes that are large, and would be disruptive, such as worker ownership of large companies. Big changes don't occur through the normal political process. There won't be a Bill to turn the economy upside down. Big changes occur after crises, collapses, or losing wars. Europe has more modern systems because most of Europe was destroyed in two world wars, and had to be rebuilt from ideas of 1950, not 1750. It helps to start with the best information. Again, that's not envy, it's just rational thought and examination of processes.

We're also on a process that's been in effect since about 1976. A process (experiment some say)often called in the early days dribble down economics (supply side, Chicago School, etc). In 40 years it has eliminated what was a large, healthy middle class. Now, that is a name only with no one actually meeting the meaning of it. An empty set. So, no panic yet. Living standards have slipped, but debt made up for most of it. But, the next 40 years will push that group down two more notches (at this rate), and that might become a crisis or collapse. I hope not. But that would be the time when large changes come about. As an example from the social side, 9/11 was that magnitude of crisis, and massive changes in law and civil relations were made quickly with almost no debate.

The depression of the 1930s, was the last time we saw economic crises leading to large economic system changes. Nothing stays the same forever.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Jim Naseum]

Yeah, pay them more money. While we're at it we can double Social Security too since the elderly find themselves in the same position. Working folk can afford it, just take it out of day check, man.

Keith

Not likely at all. There's nothing to be has there.

The two areas with the best chance of making a difference are first, capital gains. A rate change to 25% or more would be a significant adjustment. Second is a sales tax on financial instruments. You pay sales tax ( in most state) when you buy a $10 can of paint. Buffet can buy a $10M million dollar bond, or derivative, and pays no sales tax. A 1% or 2% sales tax on financial products is an "about time!" economic adjustment, long past due.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Paducah Home Theater]

In many respects your posts seem to touch upon the "barriers to entry" that jo56steph74 emphasizes in the quote below.  When a person starts out in that lower class (I did and my dad had an 8th grade education and my mother died young) there are substantial internal barriers and external barriers that must be overcome that are usually faced without much of a personal/family support system.  While that doesn't mean that the barriers cannot be overcome, I believe that it does mean that very few actually can overcome them in our current system.

As for the upper class, yeah, he's right, but as for minimum wage vs. middle class salaries, I guess I'm just out of touch but I really don't understand why it's like this. Typically this revolves around money, aka. only the affluent can go to college. The problem is that if you're poor, you'd basically get paid to go to college due to FAFSA alone. In Kentucky if you make good grades they give you up to $7,500 a year for tuition, which would cover the entire thing. If your family is poor, you can easily get FAFSA aid to the tune of over $10,000 a year. There's also many scholarships available, especially to those in need, especially for minorities. In many ways, poor people have it the easiest when it comes to college. All you have to do is study and you're golden.

Last I checked there were literally over 100,000 vacant good paying engineering type jobs available in this country that had been open for over 3 months. There's lots of opportunities. Even if you can't handle math, learn how to weld and move to North Dakota, you can make bank. At west Kentucky Technical College here in Paducah you can get a two year degree for free. You could go there and become a good welder, for free, then make like $65,000 a year in North Dakota. If you have experience, you can make that most anywhere. Do you know how much money that is to someone who grew up dirt poor? Nobody wants to do this though.

I'd probably even provide a scholarship myself if somebody wanted to do this but couldn't for transportation reasons or something. I like to see people rise up and become successful.

Edited November 9, 2015 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters

[Jim Naseum]

Mr. Jeff,

I found this study of mobility, which is similar to what I referenced about the low mobility in the US.

quote

The relationship between father-son earnings is tighter in the United States than in most peer OECD countries, meaning U.S. mobility is among the lowest of major industrialized economies. The relatively low correlations between father-son earnings in Scandinavian countries provide a stark contradiction to the conventional wisdom. An elasticity of 0.47 found in the United States offers much less likelihood of moving up than an elasticity of 0.18 or less, as characterizes Finland, Norway, and Denmark.

Source:http://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags-peer-countries-mobility/

Maybe what's most interesting is the gap between what people believe is the mobility and what it actually is. The large gap means that heavy propaganda is at work.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Paducah Home Theater]

My wife would love $15 per hour, and she is working as a degreed professional and ha two staff working under her. Still beats being a cashier at Walmart.

Bruce

Same here to be honest. Wife is an attorney but she's first and foremost a stay at home mom so she usually only takes court appointed cases and divorces. She bills at $150 an hour but realistically for every one billable hour there's more like 5 hours that aren't. Driving to the courthouse, mandatory training, research, messing with advertising, talking to people to give them advice on whether they have a case, etc. Then there's all kinds of expenses. Transportation, advertising, office equipment, office rent, telecommunications, malpractice insurance, premises insurance, we're hired people in the past, etc. Hard to say for sure but $15 an hour would probably be a decent increase.

[Nismo]

Haaaa ! Must be a glitch in the system. I don't even need 5,000 posts to access the BS section !! LOL

[Jim Naseum]

My wife would love $15 per hour, and she is working as a degreed professional and ha two staff working under her. Still beats being a cashier at Walmart.

Bruce

I've got several friends in their 70s who need to work. None make even close to $15. Typical being $10.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Fjd]

Haaaa ! Must be a glitch in the system. I don't even need 5,000 posts to access the BS section !! LOL

 

 

 

Instead of the thread crapping, why don’t you help out Mustang Guy’s son with the survey in the first post?

 

https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/160146-minimum-wage-should-it-be-15/#entry1940862

 

 

Actually, as I think about this, why do you feel the need to post this type of condescending remark criticizing and devaluing those of us attempting to delve into this topic and thread crap?  History on this forum seems to show that posts of this nature only tends to serve to attract other thread crappers.  Why are you trying to derail this thread?  Are you trying to get it locked?

 

You must have some type of corollary experience since you seem to have gotten very defensive in your ATMOS threads in what you seem to have construed as thread crapping.  Did they ask you if you had some type of financial interest related to sales surrounding ATMOS? 

 

Also, please note that I have not posted in your ATMOS thread since I do not have anything constructive to add and note that I have not thread crapped in those threads.

 

If you do not want to participate in the discussion, there are plenty of other threads that could interest you; however, please move on from this one if you do not want to participate in an intelligent manner.

[Paducah Home Theater]

I've got several friends in their 70s who need to work. None make even close to $15. Typical being $10.

It's sad really, like they have dreams of retirement but then they get there and the money runs out quickly then have to re-enter the workforce. Most can't go back to their old jobs. Some just do it out of being lonely though. Luckily the national park system is good about hiring older people to man the ranger stations and things like that, very easy plus it gives them a chance to talk to people and feel like they contribute to society.

We've got to figure out how to stop screwing over retirees. Lots of these people only know how to save, have no idea how to invest. You can save all your life but when you retire you're going to be one of these people. We are forcing people into a risky stock market against their wishes.

Edited November 9, 2015 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters

[Jeff Matthews]

Mr. Jeff,

I found this study of mobility, which is similar to what I referenced about the low mobility in the US.

quote

The relationship between father-son earnings is tighter in the United States than in most peer OECD countries, meaning U.S. mobility is among the lowest of major industrialized economies. The relatively low correlations between father-son earnings in Scandinavian countries provide a stark contradiction to the conventional wisdom. An elasticity of 0.47 found in the United States offers much less likelihood of moving up than an elasticity of 0.18 or less, as characterizes Finland, Norway, and Denmark.

Source:http://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags-peer-countries-mobility/

Maybe what's most interesting is the gap between what people believe is the mobility and what it actually is. The large gap means that heavy propaganda is at work.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

 

Thanks for that link.  Honestly, it raises questions, but I don't care to go researching into them.

 

For example, they don't give much attention to downward mobility.  Rich dads, raising sons to become bums?  This, indeed, happens.  It could be an economical thing, exacerbated by cultural differences.  For example, in The Millionaire Next Door, the data showed that 1st generation immigrants from Russia tended to be the most likely ethnic group in the US to become millionaires.  The data also showed that this propensity dropped very quickly, and by the 3rd generation, there was no statistical difference.  In any event, since the data can reflect both upward and downward mobility, the conclusion that there is more upward mobility, without corresponding downward mobility, can be in error.  I mean, you can't seriously believe that the only way they are going is disproportionately up, up and up, can you?  I suppose if that was the case, they'd have long passed us up in GDP decades ago.

 

Does the study only include sons who remained in their native countries?  We know that the US takes in a large number of immigrants who do very well here.  I've heard comments (I know, anecdotal) from Brits and other Europeans who came here to make a living because, in their words, "It's a rip-off system over there.  There isn't any opportunity."  Maybe their perceptions of their home-lands was in error, but as we have admitted in other threads, perception is very, very important.  If I believe I have opportunity here, isn't that very important?  Isn't that what matters?   Ignorance can definitely be bliss, and who the heck are you to want to pop my bubble?  It just might be that perception of mobility is what drives mobility, and in that case, immigrants do better than burned-out natives who've been told to "ditch the stupid idea of having a work ethic in this country" (sarcasm).

 

I'm sure other questions could be asked, but you get the gist.

Edited November 9, 2015 by Jeff Matthews