Minimum wage. Should it be $15?

[Jim Naseum]

QUESTION FOR ALL:

Who has turned down a raise telling the boss, "No thanks, boss! It's bad for the economy!"

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Who here has paid more taxes than required, including a handwritten note, "Here's some extra; I'm not taxed enough!"

How are taxes related to this?

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Jeff Matthews]

 

 

QUESTION FOR ALL:

Who has turned down a raise telling the boss, "No thanks, boss! It's bad for the economy!"

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Who here has paid more taxes than required, including a handwritten note, "Here's some extra; I'm not taxed enough!"

How are taxes related to this?

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

 

You are trying to show that selfishness trumps concern for the greater economy, right?  Nobody turns down raises.  Nobody pays extra taxes.

[Arrow#422]

I've turned down a raise because it wasn't enough !

[Jim Naseum]

Is there some hypocrisy here? I've never known anyone to turn down a raise because they fear higher prices and other disasters. Everyone is generous to their own need. But to others we can be penurious, parsimonious and ungenerous of spirit. What is it that has snuck into our social consciousness that prevents us from wanting prosperity for others? It was not always this way. This is a new ethic in America.

I'm near 70, so I grew up in that golden era of middle class blue collar work. I began work during that same era. Workers always wanted more prosperity for all. I can't recall any conversation where someone said, "I want a raise, but I don't want anyone below me to get a raise!" Never. That would have been a preposterous conversation.

In the 50s and 60s, workers understood clearly that their interests were in contrast to the "management interest." Today, all workers are carrying water for the owners position. "Ho!Ho! Hey!Hey!, we have to lower our wages today!"

Things change slowly and imperceptibly. So, I don't know when the changeover occurred. When workers turned their fate over to the goals of the plutocrats? What year did that happen? In my teenage years, the newspapers and TV news always had front page stories regarding "unions". They made news weekly, if not daily. Now, you'd have to Google search unions to find mentions. So, that's one change--- Powell set out to crush unions, and they did get crushed. Today, a mere 7% of workers are in a union. And that is falling.

People somehow bought the story that globalized capital and labor were not only inevitable, but also desirable. That is was a good thing to compete with 25-cent per hour labor. They couldn't grasp that completing with cheap labor would drive their own value down ward. They were bribed with cheap TVs and trinkets.

It now appears that globalization has become a religion, and people are exercising faith over reason to bolster their belief in it. They are accepting austerity without a struggle, without objection even while they root for the plutocrats who are approaching a wealth distribution which matches feudal times in the 12th century.

This thread in total is a remarkable social commentary. All the answers to the change are in here waiting to be dug out. My conclusion is that after WWII we had a peak in the idea of community. We had millions sacrificing their life for others in the nation. By now, 75 years later, we devolved into the belief that dog eat dog, and survival of the fittest, is a better model. No one can dare imagine asking billionaires to sacrifice even a penny of their wealth to raise up the whole community. It's a jungle out there.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Paducah Home Theater]

Is there some hypocrisy here? I've never known anyone to turn down a raise because they fear higher prices and other disasters. Everyone is generous to their own need. But to others we can be penurious, parsimonious and ungenerous of spirit. What is it that has snuck into our social consciousness that prevents us from wanting prosperity for others? It was not always this way. This is a new ethic in America.

I just don't agree with this at all. I want people to be successful. I want people to kick a__ in life. Everybody.

What I don't agree with the most, is punishing the people who are kicking a__ by their own doing, and giving it to the people who aren't.

To me, that is not only unethical, but un-American. That's not what this country is about. It's easy to point at the 1% and whatnot in defense of the minimum wage people, and forget about small business owners.

[Jeff Matthews]

People somehow bought the story that globalized capital and labor were not only inevitable, but also desirable. That is was a good thing to compete with 25-cent per hour labor. They couldn't grasp that completing with cheap labor would drive their own value down ward.  They were bribed with cheap TVs and trinkets.

 

No way!  This can't be true.  We've already heard that higher wages will not result in higher prices. (sarcasm)  

 

You are contradicting yourself all over the place.

 

Now, for a reality check.  Nobody "bribed" anyone with cheap trinkets.  The public clamored for them.  The public does not need as much money (i.e., pay raises) to afford stuff that keeps getting cheaper and cheaper.

 

You have a hard time understanding inflation.

Edited November 12, 2015 by Jeff Matthews

[Mallette]

What I don't agree with the most, is punishing the people who are kicking a__ by their own doing, and giving it to the people who aren't.

 

Relevance?  Reeks of "survival of the fittest and to hell with the rest." 

 

Not the kind of society I care to live in.

 

Dave

[Paducah Home Theater]

Reeks of "survival of the fittest and to hell with the rest."

 

How is that any different than saying we should only buy our best products and simply not buy everything else?  What exactly do you think the end result would be for all the workers who work at the factories that make products that you deem to be inferior?  

 

 

Our biggest, most desirable, and durable items are not produced by minimum wage people.  By and large the output of the low salary people in this country is stuff we can live without entirely and probably should.

Edited November 12, 2015 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters

[Jeff Matthews]

 

Reeks of "survival of the fittest and to hell with the rest."

 

How is that any different than saying we should only buy our best products and simply not buy everything else?  What exactly do you think the end result would be for all the workers who work at the factories that make products that you deem to be inferior?  

 

 

Our biggest, most desirable, and durable items are not produced by minimum wage people.  By and large the output of the low salary people in this country is stuff we can live without entirely and probably should.

 

 

There should be a law which says we are required to buy a minimum of schitty products.  That way, the low salary people can be paid more, and presumably, they will start making better stuff.

[Paducah Home Theater]

There should be a law which says we are required to buy a minimum of schitty products.  That way, the low salary people can be paid more, and presumably, they will start making better stuff.

 

 

As ridiculous as that sounds, you'd pretty much have to do this to obtain the goal that some people here want.  

[Jeff Matthews]

I understand the opposing view, though.  Basically, it is this:

 

The rich are so fabulously rich that it is incorrect to assume they can't afford to pay their minions better.  This is true.

 

My view differs - not on these facts - but rather, because the whole thing is rigged, and it will stay rigged.  All this talk of rearranging the deck is pie in the sky.  It could happen, but I think it will require a major insurrection (civil war) or a long, long time.  Neither of those are viable alternatives for the here and now.

 

And again, how will more money in the hands of more people not result in inflation and result in a "wash?"

Edited November 12, 2015 by Jeff Matthews

[oldtimer]

And again, how will more money in the hands of more people not result in inflation and result in a "wash?"

 

The money is already in their hands.  Those that are paid a low enough wage then turn to government programs to help with the rest.  It is already a wash.  The question becomes why should some businesses who employ mainly low paid workers get subsidized by all tax payers when other businesses are not.  A side issue is the inefficiency of this method of distribution.

 

None of this is as simple as indoctrinated ideas suggest.

Edited November 12, 2015 by oldtimer

[Fjd]

I understand the opposing view, though.  Basically, it is this:

 

The rich are so fabulously rich that it is incorrect to assume they can't afford to pay their minions better.  This is true.

 

My view differs - not on these facts - but rather, because the whole thing is rigged, and it will stay rigged.  All this talk of rearranging the deck is pie in the sky.  It could happen, but I think it will require a major insurrection (civil war) or a long, long time.  Neither of those are viable alternatives for the here and now.

 

And again, how will more money in the hands of more people not result in inflation and result in a "wash?"

 

 

 

Tyler Durden, Fight Club?  It would seem that the paradigms that worked in the past are fundamentally breaking down; therefore, we cannot fix the problem with an old used bandage. 

 

“The robot-apocalypse for workers may be inevitable. In this vision of the future, super-smart machines will best humans in pretty much every task. A few of us will own the machines, a few will work a bit… while the rest will live off a government-provided income… the most common job in most U.S. states probably will no longer be truck driver.”

 

It would seem that there is a huge obsession with “maximizing short-term profits” that has engulfed companies over the past 30 years that has created a business culture in which executives “dance” to the whims of short-term traders, hedge funds, and quarterly earnings reports, instead of balancing the long-term growth and value created for customers, long-term equity owners, and employees.

 

I'm not certain that these hospitality-types of business that provide convenience-type services where restaurants would be categorized really have a significant impact on inflation.   Of course, there could be more of an impact if I'm reading the 2014 wage statistics correctly in the social security 2014 wage data at this link;

 

 

https://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/netcomp.cgi?year=2014

 

-38 percent of all American workers made less than $20,000 last year.

-51 percent of all American workers made less than $30,000 last year.

-62 percent of all American workers made less than $40,000 last year.

-71 percent of all American workers made less than $50,000 last year.

 

The first number just seems staggering to me given that the federal poverty level for a family of (is it four or five?) is $28,410; and this data seems to show that almost 40 % of all American workers do not even bring in $20,000 a year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Corporate profits as a percentage of GDP

 

 

 

 

Wages as a percentage of GDP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Labor's share of income

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited November 12, 2015 by Fjd

[Jeff Matthews]

The question becomes why should some businesses who employ mainly low paid workers get subsidized by all tax payers when other businesses are not. 

 

Because this is the result, not the design.

 

When a person is negligent on the job and hurts himself or herself badly, he or she might qualify for, and receive, disability payments (SSDI).  Does this mean we subsidize negligence?

 

You are right in that there is a connection there.  On the other hand, you might ask if certain businesses aren't easing the tax-payers' welfare burden by providing low-paying jobs to the unemployed.  It's a chicken/egg debate.  

[CECAA850]

The first number just seems staggering to me

 

I have 2 daughters that fit into that category.  My youngest goes to high school and works part time at a grocery store.  My oldest is married to a marine.  All the jobs in the area are taken by other marine spouses so she'll pick up a part time job on occasion.  She volunteers a lot as well.  Neither live in poverty but fall under the first category.  They both are workers that make less than 20k a year.  Before my parents died they would have fit into that category also as they'd do some part time things, more for something to do than for the income.  They did not live in poverty either unless you put them in that category on paper.

[Jeff Matthews]

 

The first number just seems staggering to me

 

I have 2 daughters that fit into that category.  My youngest goes to high school and works part time at a grocery store.  My oldest is married to a marine.  All the jobs in the area are taken by other marine spouses so she'll pick up a part time job on occasion.  She volunteers a lot as well.  Neither live in poverty but fall under the first category.  They both are workers that make less than 20k a year.  Before my parents died they would have fit into that category also as they'd do some part time things, more for something to do than for the income.  They did not live in poverty either unless you put them in that category on paper.

 

Note that the definition of poverty is based on income and not wealth, nor living expenses.  If you inherit a lot of money and property, but don't make $20,000, you are poor. If you make less than $20k but live at home and your parents pay for everything, you are poor.

[CECAA850]

Note that the definition of poverty is based on income and not wealth, nor living expenses. If you inherit a lot of money and property, but don't make $20,000, you are poor. If you make less than $20k but live at home and your parents pay for everything, you are poor.

 

And again you make my point for me better than I could do myself.

[Paducah Home Theater]

Those that are paid a low enough wage then turn to government programs to help with the rest.  It is already a wash.  The question becomes why should some businesses who employ mainly low paid workers get subsidized by all tax payers when other businesses are not.

 

I am not stuck on a number such as 15 and am not stuck on overnight.  Don't confuse me for someone who is.

Please explain how you think somebody supporting a family could make less than $15 an hour, and be off all forms of government assistance, and still have a higher standard of living. Unless they have major benefits on top of that as well as a working spouse or second job, that's not going to happen.

Regardless of anythign else, the average premium for a family of four in the private sector is around $17,500 right now I believe. At that rate, even if you did make $15 an hour, if you're limited to 32 hours a week, you'd clear $7,500 all year. Even without taxes, you're literally bringing home $4.50 an hour. That's $144 a week. If you go to the doctor at all even without anything major, your deductible can wipe out 1/3 to 1/2 of what's left.

Even if you did make a full $15 an hour, if you're limited to 32 hours and no benefits, apparently somehow you're going to pay rent, provide clothes, transportation, feed four people, and everything else, for like 5 grand a year. And that's with us literally more than doubling the minimum wage and given the workers everything they are asking for.

There is not going to be any hand wringing from our government where workers are suddenly self sufficient after an increase. Not going to happen, and even if it did, workers would be much worse off. You can't both make them self sufficient and increase their standard of living at this amount of pay.

Edited November 12, 2015 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters

[Jim Naseum]

 

 

 

QUESTION FOR ALL:

Who has turned down a raise telling the boss, "No thanks, boss! It's bad for the economy!"

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Who here has paid more taxes than required, including a handwritten note, "Here's some extra; I'm not taxed enough!"

How are taxes related to this?

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

 

You are trying to show that selfishness trumps concern for the greater economy, right?  Nobody turns down raises.  Nobody pays extra taxes.

 

No, that's not what I am demonstrating at all. 

 

Point: A raise for others is no good for this technical reason or the other, but a raise for ME is always great!

[Fjd]

 

 

The first number just seems staggering to me

 

I have 2 daughters that fit into that category.  My youngest goes to high school and works part time at a grocery store.  My oldest is married to a marine.  All the jobs in the area are taken by other marine spouses so she'll pick up a part time job on occasion.  She volunteers a lot as well.  Neither live in poverty but fall under the first category.  They both are workers that make less than 20k a year.  Before my parents died they would have fit into that category also as they'd do some part time things, more for something to do than for the income.  They did not live in poverty either unless you put them in that category on paper.

 

Note that the definition of poverty is based on income and not wealth, nor living expenses.  If you inherit a lot of money and property, but don't make $20,000, you are poor. If you make less than $20k but live at home and your parents pay for everything, you are poor.

 

 

 

 

Credit Suisse estimates that 25% of Americans are in this situation of having a negative net-worth.  Essentially, “If you’ve no debts and have $10 in your pocket you have more wealth than 25% of Americans. More than 25% of Americans have collectively that is.” - Simon Black, international investor, entrepreneur

 

 

I guess we should be thankful we are not in that 25% that will inherit debt.

Edited November 12, 2015 by Fjd