Minimum wage. Should it be $15?

[Mallette]

Wanna try at least one more on topic attempt at breaking through the idea that a 20.00 minimum wage would end civilization as the middle class knows it.

 

Let's say McDumass raises the price of a number one meal from 5.99 to 6.99.  By far the greatest impact is to the middle class who long since forgot how to cook a decent meal at home and has expectations of cheap crap that keeps the kids fat and happy...literally.

 

Do I REALLY think people are going to suddenly start cooking at home or that sales are going to go down significantly?  No, I don't  If they do, then the 1 percent is going to bite the bullet and lower prices.  If not, maybe more families will sit down at the table together.

 

This can be extended to a much greater part of our economy in much the same way. 

 

"Convenience" stores were all mom and pop operations, and included small hardware stores, garages, and all sorts of things when I was young.  The price gap between them and the big stores of the day was greater than today, but we used them as we should...when going to the chain grocer or hardware store was impractical.  They made a good living and lived in the same neighborhood we did and life was good.

 

Tell me what's wrong with this model other than a successful propaganda campaign that has placed so many of the middle class squarely believing the 1 percent's dire warnings that we can't afford to provide a decent living to our servants.

 

Dave

[sheltie dave]

There are not enough $15 an hour jobs to hire 10% of the workers who are minimum wage earners.

 

There are not enough colleges and junior colleges with cheap enough annual tuition charges to allow people making $8/hr, $16,000 a year to attend full time college.

 

There are not enough $400 a month rental apartments to house the working poor. And this cheap apartment kills off $5,000, so now the $16K is $11K.

 

Electric is $60 a month, gas is $50 a month, water is $30 a month, food is $200 a month, so that kills off $4100. Now the $16K is $6.2K.

 

Rental insurance is $80 a month, so that kills another grand, now the $16K is $5.2K.

 

Health insurance, bare bones, is about $2k a year, so now the $16K is $3.2K.

 

Carson's flat 15% tax would eat up $2.4K, so now you have $800 for the year to rub together in your pocket. But wait, there is one junior college that has tuition of $100 per credit hour, so you can take eight hours a year. Drop the health insurance, and now you can go full time. Drop the rental insurance, and you can even buy a snack while at school! Just don't plan on moving away from the apartment at the edge of the ghetto any time soon.

 

PS...don't plan on a major inn MIS, because your favorite politicians are doing all they can to import cheap talent, or the companies are telexporting these slots overseas.

[Woofers and Tweeters]

First, I am not a Carson fan. I asked about a flat tax because I want to know what can be done to stop discouraging people from earning more and encouraging people to earn less. A lot of people turn down overtime due to having to pay higher taxes. What justifies having to pay a higher %? Is it not unjust to steal more money you earned? What more does the government do that merits them to take more? 

 

Next, entry level pay is just that and from there one should strive to move up and better one's pay. I did just that. I was a single parent of 3 when I put myself through college. It was a challenge an I lernt alot. 

 

Also, people keep talking about the good ol days of the 50s, 60s and into the 70s. Who can deny that it was a great time? Moms stayed home and dads went to work, industry was booming and everyone remembered the horror of war. But, IMHO, we were riding on the coat tails of the war. The rest of the industrialized world was blown to &*@% and most of the world had IOUs from war materials and post war loans to pay to the US. We exported, exported and exported. We had money coming in. It only took ~20 years for that momentum to dissipate. Those who were prosperous might give thanks for the attempted expansionism of WWII.  

 

The Federal Reserve churning out worthless paper, society demanding that the expectation and achievement bar to be lowered and that we should eat the rich. I want solutions. How do we get on the 'prosperous track' again? Taking your Khorns from you because the family from the other side of the tracks can only afford Heresy isn't going to fix anything. 

[Mallette]

Not keeping up with who is proposing what as I want to stay away from politics in a good thread...however, I've lived in a country with a flat tax.  Singapore had half page annual return and except for about two things that were deductible the rate was 15% across the board.  Seemed to work extremely well for them.  They also had national health care that was the best I've ever heard of and the only one I've experienced. 

 

There was plenty to criticize aside from those things but I have nothing but admiration for those two things. 

 

Dave

[Jim Naseum]

What is prosperity? It is everyone working at good paying jobs in peacetime. We don't know of any other definition.

That breaks down to the simple formula of more jobs plus higher pay plus peace.

Where are the jobs? They are all being exported as a function of trade agreements. You can't expect a company to hire an American when they just worked hard to get a trade agreement allowing them too hire overseas for 1/10th the wage.

Where is the high pay? You can't expect high pay when there is a persistent surplus of labor created by offshoring jobs through trade agreements. The more jobs you export, the more surplus labor you will have to drive wages down.

As long as we insist on blaming the victims of the economic morass instead of understanding how the economy has been wired to move all prosperity to a few thousand people we will remain mired in economic purgatory.

Sent from my ALCATEL A564C using Tapatalk

[sheltie dave]

J, there are many answers, however, it is best to look at what worked historically here in the US.

 

The period of time when we grew our middle class by leaps and bounds was when we were a nation of producers, with strong unions, and an extremely high level of wealth redistribution by the government. This triumvirate of circumstances created a stable and strong middle class.

 

It is ironic that we now talk about eating the rich, when during my years growing up, my parents never paid less than 40% of their income. But they never ran around, calling themselves job creators, and demanding tax breaks left and right because they earned the right to be better represented than those making less. When the scales tip too far to benefiting the wealthy, let us remember that there is a finite amount of wealth and income created every year. Also, the vast majority of job creators are not the top 5% of income earners, but small businesses under 200 employees. Understanding production and consumption patterns, and where and why opportunities are created, will help us focus on the economic truths, rather than the political bromides that are a false front.

 

I would have no problem losing my KHorns if we were in the top 1%, or the top 5%, of wage earners in the US. I could just go out and buy another five sets tomorrow.

 

 

Edited November 14, 2015 by sheltie dave

[Jim Naseum]

If people would spend half as much time studying the economy as they spend listening to political candidates spreading propaganda about the economy, they would easily understand how the economy is being wired up to move middle class wealth up into the accounts of the plutocrats.

When people say there is no prosperity they are missing the almost invisible flood of prosperity flowing into the accounts of a few plutocrats. You can't see that because they don't want you to see it, and they have the tools to keep it secret. But look, even a cursory study, with no effort, would show that corporate profits have risen so high now, that they can't even find a way to invest that money. Oh, there's plenty of prosperity, but it's hidden from you in corporate treasuries. $3T already sitting idle. Totally idle. And growing by leaps and bounds. Have you actually studied the stock prices of Alphabet, Amazon, Facebook, Netflix? Can you possibly study that and still say, "where is the prosperity?" Have you never actually played the board game called Monopoly to see how wealth flows?

America had the best and richest economy, but it's being held a secret from the masses.

Sent from my ALCATEL A564C using Tapatalk

Edited November 14, 2015 by jo56steph74

[DrWho]

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

I like the intent behind the approach, but I think that falls apart when you look at the budgets for the poor. The increased cost in food hurts the poor more than the rich.

For example, take the poor person that has just enough to cover their needs. I think the increased labor cost will cause the price of goods to match the pace of their income growth.

I have some really poor friends and sometimes they ask for help so I get to take a close look at their finances. They are incredibly hardworking, and trying to better their position, but here's what I see:

1) Dominant expense is housing. Rent for the cheapest crappy unhealthy tiny disgusting apartment is easily half of their income.

2) Opportunities arise to increase their pay, but they don't have the skills for the better position.

3) There is no opportunity for improving their skills due to lack of time and money. (Always working and just barely making ends meet).

4) Financial stress causes them to get into really unhealthy situations. More dramatic examples might be things like prostitution, or drugs, but more subtle things would be choice of roommates or significant other. No car? Start dating and living with someone from work that does...

5) There's usually something in their upbringing (family situation, etc) that dramatically affects their current position.

I'd be interested in an economic study of the true rise in cost of goods as a function of labor rates. We could probably deduce it from the import taxes for foreign built cars....it's high enough that foreign car companies have moved a lot of manufacturing over here.

Also, I'd like to see a shift in our cultural expectation for housing situations. I think it's insane financially for anyone to live alone. And yet there is a greater cultural ethic that looks down on those that live with their family.

I really wish churches would be proactive in creating communes that aren't just for the poor, but open to anyone wanting to share life together. And the reason for a church doing it is to have a moral compass that mandates healthy behavior....none of this crazy crap found in the projects. Then you get natural opportunity for philanthropy and tons of informal counseling. Living with a family that "has it together" is really the only way to learn how much preparation and sacrifice goes into "maintaining control" - which is really just having backup plans and building your safety net.

One other thought for you Dave. We shouldn't be satisfied with an "inefficient government". If we see opportunity for improvement, then it is our civil responsibility to make sure those ideas are heard. Complaining about it, or accepting the status quo shouldn't be our default. I've spent a lot of time recently following the political decision making process and have found politicians to be surprisingly intelligent and open-minded as long as it's not a campaign issue.

[Jim Naseum]

The church commune idea is particularly worthy of merit. It would clearly be better than ghetto level housing projects. Good thoughts there Mr. DrWho'sOnFirst.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Edited November 14, 2015 by jo56steph74

[Jim Naseum]

Crucial Economic Inflection Points

1933 GlassStegall Act

1935 Wagner Act

1947 Taft Hartley Act

1971 Lewis Powell Memo to US Chamber of Commerce

1982-1987 Top marginal tax rate falls from 70% to 38%

1992 The NAFTA

1994 WTO agreement

1999 Repeal Glass Steagall

2008 Bank Bailout

2015 The TPP Agreement? TBD

The first two inflections were pro Middle Class. The next eight are anti middle class, anti labor.

The middle class was easy picking. Essentially, it was defined by getting paid more than sustenance wages. That premium over sustenance was used to become home owners, buy cars, save for college, take vacations, gain access to health care, buy life insurance, and maintain savings for a rainy day. That's what defined a huge working middle class.

Seeing the premium wages, the plutocrats used their economic power to obtain political power to change the rules in ways to drive those premium wages back down to sustenance wages, thereby eliminating the middle class and taking that wage premium into their pockets. You can see this clearly by studying historical income distribution charts plotted against the rule changes, like the NAFTA.

Contrary to popular belief, wealth moved up and away from middle class not downward to the poor. Again this is plainly evident in the recorded data. No guessing is required.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Mallette]

Mike, I am not so sure that food prices would leap up.  Yes, a lot of minimum wage (or worse) labor in that area but also massive agribusiness and mechanization as well as imports that wouldn't be affected.  Here again the 1 percent would absorb some due to mainstream backlash.  Still think that overall the lower economic levels would be much better off.

 

Again, no expert...but feels right from what I understand of the system.

 

I think my main sense is that the mainstream (read:  1 percent controlled) media have successfully convinced a majority that it's the middle class who will pay for any aid to those with less.  I think it's a big lie.  In any event, worth giving a try sense nothing else works.

 

Dave

[Jeff Matthews]

Contrary to popular belief, wealth moved up and away from middle class not downward to the poor. Again this is plainly evident in the recorded data. No guessing is required.

 

This much is true.  There is no disputing the data.  However, that doesn't mean all is lost for everyone.  Yes, you, too, can be an anecdote. 

[Jim Naseum]

Now THAT is funny. 

[sheltie dave]

Becoming an anecdote is great, but are you then willing to remember where you came from, and strive to build a stronger staircase, so others can follow you, or do you seek to strenuously hold onto everything you have gained and put a boot on everyone seeking to start up that skinny staircase to prosperity?

 

In part, the ability to succeed is also determined by the presence of opportunity and abetted by mentors and available role models to follow. This is one reason the military is quite a successful avenue to those coming out of the projects and slums in our neck of the woods.

[JohnA]

.......

Would you join a church with no moral foundation? A fraternal organization? Would you want to live in a moral free zone? About 75% of the nation identify themselves as Christians, and yet none can apply their Christian morality to the economy? I suppose they think that, "Love your neighbor" means just while at church. That the Sermon on the Mount has no economic meaning? (Oh, He didn't mean wages, did he?) God or Mammon, you can't worship both, only applies outside of the economy?

...........

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

 

 

 

One cannot serve Mammon AND God.  That is very nearly the basis for me saying there are moral, amoral and Immoral capitalists.  I choose moral capitalists and check to see if they are.  It is my responsibility to protect myself. 

 

I do not know how to verify your claims of millions in desperate straights.  I know people on Social Security that are frugal, but not suffering in any way. 

 

Outside of that, I do not agree with any other thing you wrote.  I do not have your depressed view of our country and it's conditions.  My profession was in the environmental field.  I definitely do not share your view that our environmental laws and regulations are corrupted and that we have bad air, water and soil.  In places, sure.  Some companies break the law, until caught.  They are immoral capitalists, but that does not warrant tarring every company. 

 

No employer has a duty to provide retirement or medical insurance to its employees.  That "benefit" began in WWII when wages were frozen and extras were added to get or keep employees.  I alone am responsible for my health and its cost.  To avoid raiding my investments, that I saved by living well below my means when I was working, I buy medical insurance.  But, it is still my responsibility, alone.  As is my income, now that I am retired.  For most of my working years I saved all I was allowed to deduct from taxes, plus a little.  We lived in a house that was half of what we supposedly could afford and drove used cars.  If I can do it, anybody can. 

 

I attended government schools through college.  I did not have an advantage over others other than the expectations my parents placed on me and their Christian morals they taught me.  If I can do it, anybody can, if they choose to.

[Jim Naseum]

I definitely do not share your view that our environmental laws and regulations are corrupted and that we have bad air, water and soil.  In places, sure. 

Self contradiction.

 

One cannot serve Mammon AND God.  That is very nearly the basis for me saying there are moral, amoral and Immoral capitalists.  I choose moral capitalists and check to see if they are.

 

I wasn't speaking of "capitalists," I was speaking of "capitalism". One is an individual, another is a set of principles of operation. Those principles, or the theory itself, doesn't include a moral core. For instance, "The Golden Rule" is a wonderful moral dictum, but it's not a part of capitalist theory. "Serving the Greater Good" is another handsome dictum, but again, not a part of capitalist theory. All moral ideas are supplanted by one goal - to maximize profit. 

 

If you can't find a moral premise within a theory, it is "amoral" by definition. When there is no moral compass, there is no predicting the good or harm that might be caused. And, there is obviously no accountability, aside from individual specific laws, which the capitalist seeks to avoid at all cost. 

 

So, you approve of and support an amoral theory, and I do not. That's our difference of opinion. I hold that all social and economic activity ought to be constrained by a readily identifiable moral code, and that all operators within, are subject to accountability to that moral code, and you don't. I want to live in a morally accountable society, and you want something else. 

 

As to the individuals who actually qualify as being "capitalists" there have been a few good ones along with many horrible ones. Let's not forget that Henry Ford and the Harrimans funneled money, loans, support and adulation to Hitler, because they were in love with Fascism. Most capitalists have a rather checkered background. We could today have capitalists working against my best interests, and why would I want that? Why on earth would someone ask me to be enthusiastic about men who are using soldiers as disposable pawns so that they can make more money? And believe me, those men are walking the earth right this minute wearing the "capitalist" hat. 

 

Why would any rational human being want to submit his future to an amoral process? Beats me. But therein lies our difference of opinion. 

[Jim Naseum]

Right This Minute

 

A horrendous treaty is being raced through Congress. It will add more devastation to the small remaining middle class. It will drives wages even lower than now, it will cost more jobs to be shipped offshore and maybe worse yet, it will invalidate many consumer safety protections we have under our laws. The TransPacificPartnership - TPP, is a new so-called trade treaty. 

 

It was designed by, and negotiated by, global capitalists. It is designed to vacuum up even more money from the remaining middle class. The reason all Congressmen were prevented from seeing it, participating in it, is to prevent the public - YOU - from learning what it is until it is a done deal. 

 

The goals of the TPP are not just amoral, they are immoral, as they seek to NEGATE and BYPASS laws/and rules that your representatives have passed for your protection.You will be made vulnerable to vicious foreign capitalists that you can not even drag into a US court. Good luck with all that. But, that's CAPITALISM in full flower, applying the profit without conscience maxim to your life.

 

It looks like it will sail through Congress, and you will be subject to the amoral whims of capitalists in Vietnam, Malaysia, Mexico and more. Got a beef? You can take it to a corporate court that they control, with judges they appoint. You have ZERO recourse in the courts of your own country. Sound good to you? 

[Ski Bum]

Becoming an anecdote is great, but are you then willing to remember where you came from, and strive to build a stronger staircase, so others can follow you, or do you seek to strenuously hold onto everything you have gained and put a boot on everyone seeking to start up that skinny staircase to prosperity?

 

Most put the boot to their own throat by succumbing to the temptations of short-sighted, immediate gratification consumerism.  It's a great means of controlling the masses, better than any autocratic dictator's wet dreams.  The illusion of choice and all.  It works like Soma, only without the group sex and euphoria.  

Edited November 14, 2015 by Ski Bum

[Jeff Matthews]

It works like Soma, without the group sex and euphoria.  

 

Group sex and euphoria?     Let's talk more about Soma! 

[Ski Bum]

Reference to Huxley's Brave New World...Soma was the pharmacological agent that "had all the advantages of Christianity and alcohol; none of their defects" in terms of controlling the population.  (Oh, shit, now we have to lock the thread, sorry.)  

Edited November 14, 2015 by Ski Bum