Minimum wage. Should it be $15?

[mshihadeh3]

Really what should be determined is what exactly is a living wage in the USA (the bare minimum to survive with food and shelter). This should be the minimum wage, anything less would be useless unless someone was willing to live in a sub standard way or trade illegally to offset the difference. The actual Un-employment rate is around 30% and not bottomed out. at some point the people with nothing will just take it from the rest that refuse to re distribute the wealth. It will be too late for discussions about such thing when the mob arrives to help themselves. i don't have an answer for mans even consuming greed, lets hope the poor have more caring hearts when the tables have turned.

[Travis In Austin]

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

Disagree with you here....You do know that the church in the US takes in more money than the NFL right?

"The church"? Which church? If it is the Catholic Church, I think they have been paying out more than they have been taking in recently.

What is the minimum player salary in the NFL these days? What benefits do they get on top of that?

How did players achieve the incomes they do?

[Jim Naseum]

I don't chose to share my definitive "vote" on the matter directly.

 

 

Figures.  

[Jim Naseum]

 

 

 

The Chinese workers aren't going to be paying for my Social Security and Medicare, right?

Why are we stuck on the idea that future generations pays for our stuff? If you want to look out for yourself, then how about you just save your own money which will pay for your own stuff? You'd come out way ahead. Otherwise, you're doing it for humanity reasons.

 

 

I am unable to connect your last comment to anything I said that you quoted.

 

Your quote is based on being worried about yourself. You help American workers so they can pay your retirement. I'm just saying you gotta figure out what your priorities are, helping yourself, or helping fellow humans.

I'm also saying that helping somebody so they can pay for your retirement isn't very efficient, you can do it yourself and come out ahead. I don't like the pension and social security we have now, I'd rather have more control of it myself. If you could take your social security taxes and invest it all your life, you'd have a ridiculously fat bank account when you retire, instead of worrying about whether it's going to be there, and if younger generations are making enough to support you.

 

 

I'm trying to see something about the minimum wage there, and I don't see it. I think you are talking about Social Security?

[Jim Naseum]

Really what should be determined is what exactly is a living wage in the USA (the bare minimum to survive with food and shelter).

 

 

No health care? No transportation? No dependents? 

 

Living wage calculations have been made in many areas of the country. They vary of course depending on many factors, but in all the cases I know, the living wage is higher than the proposed minimum wage. Here is an example:

 

QUOTE

Effective June 30, 2015, the current living wage is $14.04 per hour plus a medical benefit equivalent to at least $2.33 per hour. If the employer does not provide the employee at least $2.33 per hour toward an employee medical benefits plan, the employer shall pay an hourly wage of not less than $16.37.

[DrWho]

 

What's wrong with a servant class if the servants are well cared for?

 

Good point.  Actually, why pay them at all if they are well cared for.

 

 

That's kinda where I'm going with this....

 

In a capitalist structure the money is simply a mechanism by which people have more choice in "how they get cared for". Instead of feeding someone pizza for painting my living room, I'll give them money so they can purchase their own pizza, or maybe they prefer a hat instead, or whatever else it is they feel they've earned for their service. Basically, it's one step above bartering because I don't have to have the specific item they need in order for them to do the service. It just dramatically simplifies the bartering process. So to answer the question - in our culture we need to pay them money because that's the mechanism we choose to employ. Is it the only mechanism? Certainly not. Is it the best one? Given the current state of humanity, I think yes - but given a higher state of humanity, I think no...

 

I feel like these economic discussions so quickly turn into a discussion about acquiring money itself - as if the money itself is the reward. I think that is a bad way to think about it, so I try to differentiate my definition of money as the representation of "the number of favors owed" to a person. When you think of it like this, the morality of the situation becomes more apparent....is this person receiving the opportunity for an equivalently valued favor?

 

A lot of people find themselves in needy situations, so they might perform bigger favors in exchange for smaller favors because their need inflates the value of the smaller favors they receive. I think there is a moral dilemma here because someone is exploiting another's situation. However, I think there is a different morality when someone is performing favors that simply don't have a lot of value.

 

Let's take the burger flipping analogy as an example (since it appears to be so popular). How big of a favor is it that someone else cook us our food and provide it in a very little amount of time? What would I be willing to do in exchange for that favor? Would I mow someone's lawn in exchange for a dinner? Probably not. Would I was their dishes? Most certainly, but they would probably want more than that. At some point, the person simply isn't adding a lot of value to society - so why would we give higher valued favors in exchange for that small favor? Isn't that still exploiting a situation in the other direction?

 

I'm still thinking through all this and one of the problems I have with this mindset is that it implies a person's value is related heavily to their production capability. If we hold to that viewpoint, then we need to get rid of the elderly, handicapped, chronically ill, etc.... and I'm not sure anyone would consciously agree with that, but yet it's a subconscious reality of our culture that I disagree with.

 

 

Anyways, I'm trying to avoid putting dollar amounts on all this because I think the morality is the key issue here. We wouldn't need structure and rules if we had hard-working people that cared about each other. Laziness and selfishness seem to be the root issues at play here, but we don't talk about those issues directly. Instead, we turn the discussion into some odd abstraction where money is the prize, and those without money are by default lazy, and those with money by default don't care about their fellow man. Talking in such moral extremes makes it impossible to have a reasoned perspective on the true complexity of the issue. There is a finite amount of favors sought by the culture, and then there are a finite amount of people available to perform favors. Then there are the finite capabilities of each of those people - some can perform highly valued favors, while others aren't capable of performing any favors at all.

 

 

At what point do we just decide to take care of each other? Hey, you're a doctor? Why don't you tend to my broken arm for "free"? Meanwhile, the doctor doesn't seek any favor in return - he just focuses on cranking out that doctor stuff because he knows he's going to get fed either way - and that's because the farmer dude is busting his butt to feed as many people as possible. Oh, you need to get that food from one place to another? Let the guys that love driving trucks take care of that, etc. It's a euphoric ideal that probably won't ever exist, but how the heck could that fail? Oh wait, everyone is afraid they're going to miss out on their part of the pie, or they're greedy and want more than their share.....and thus the exploitation begins.

[Jim Naseum]

d one of the problems I have with this mindset is that it implies a person's value is related heavily to their production capability.

 

Nothing draws this point more dramatically than comparing a 20 year old  ball player making  $5,000,000 a year and a 20 year old ACTIVE duty soldier making $19,000. 

[Paducah Home Theater]

I'm still thinking through all this and one of the problems I have with this mindset is that it implies a person's value is related heavily to their production capability. If we hold to that viewpoint, then we need to get rid of the elderly, handicapped, chronically ill, etc.... and I'm not sure anyone would consciously agree with that

The Japanese tend to agree. That's partially why there's so many suicides and relaxed euthanasia laws. As soon as people start thinking they are a drain to society, they start thinking about offing themselves. Older couples have been known to jump off cliffs hand in hand.

[Nismo]

 

d one of the problems I have with this mindset is that it implies a person's value is related heavily to their production capability.

 

Nothing draws this point more dramatically than comparing a 20 year old  ball player making  $5,000,000 a year and a 20 year old ACTIVE duty soldier making $19,000. 

 

You could always lobby your congressman to support a 95% tax rate & attempt to raise the active duty wages higher.

[garyrc]

 

 

While now the exception, they are still out there and I drive MILES to get to one to avoid the other.

When I lived in the SF Bay area, I used to drive across Oakland and most of Berkeley to get a burger from a little joint I liked.

Which one?

 

 

Brooks hamburgers.  It may have once been part of a chain, but was independent during my time.  It looked like they may have taken over a Foster's Freeze building.  The meat was good & juicy, and they had a lot of chopped lettuce with (maybe) kale, and other stuff.  The milkshakes were good, also.  I hope it's still there.  This was in the late '60s, so if it's there, it must be in the hands of the second or third generation.  

 

Did you used to live in the Bay Area?  When we had money, we used to drive to Giovonni's, or maybe go to the Steppenwolf and play chess, while watching Mario Savio tend bar, or have a Borneo Fog Cutter at Oleg's.

Edited November 16, 2015 by garyrc

[garyrc]

Economic Theory

Hypothesis: Higher wages, especially in the lowest sector, represents all new demand because all the increase is spent in the short term. New demand required new production, and new production drives new jobs. All of that drives increased profits and higher stock prices. Taken together that's known as prosperity.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

 

Exactly!

Edited November 16, 2015 by garyrc

[JJkizak]

Just like I said before---Henry Ford took a lot of flack for raising the hourly wage to 5 dollars per hour at his company so they could afford to purchase $850.00 cars. All of the supposed experts said this was stupid but it turned out to be a fantastic move. Then in the 60's the unions got the wages going upward and we had the American middle class supporting the entire planet. The experts were wrong again.

JJK

[Mallette]

Just like I said before---Henry Ford took a lot of flack for raising the hourly wage to 5 dollars per hour at his company so they could afford to purchase $850.00 cars. All of the supposed experts said this was stupid but it turned out to be a fantastic move. Then in the 60's the unions got the wages going upward and we had the American middle class supporting the entire planet. The experts were wrong again.

JJK

No argument from me here.

 

You get what you pay for.  If you want productivity, pay for it and you'll get it.

 

Dave

[Jim Naseum]

The Minimum Wage Myth Busters

http://www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Don Richard]

I have a friend who has been in this country for 3 years now, moved from Mexico, and is on the path to citizenship. This guy is working 3 jobs, 2 of them in restaurants, one in a convenience store, in order to make ends meet. Contrast that to the girl Cavuto interviewed, who wants free college and $15 an hour minimum. My friend seems to have a better handle on real world math and economics than she does. He knows that when one first enters the job market one starts at the bottom. He knows that if one cannot find a job that pays enough so one can reach his goals, one can work more hours, and he's willing to work. Who do you think will wind up being successful? I'll bet on the guy that's setting goals and is willing to work

 

The idealist's error is in not considering the costs of such an entitlement, which will be substantial. Costs will rise, taxes will go up, inflation will increase. As far as a $15 minimum wage the net effect will be that the $15 will be worth less, and the economy will be weakened. Seems a high price to pay considering the overall negative results that will ensue.

 

Who was it that said a democracy will be successful until the people figure out that they can vote money out of the public treasury? It appears the USA is at that point now, and it's sad. I'm astonished at the attitudes of some of the younger generation. They want the pie in the sky, but they don't know what it costs, they don't want to pay for it, and they don't want to work for it. If America is to remain great it will be because of immigrants like my friend, people who recognize the opportunity this great nation of ours offers, people who are willing to start on the bottom rung of the ladder of success and climb to the top. People who are willing to work hard and earn what they get have long been the backbone of America and will be the future of our country.

[muel]

Wow... lot of promotion going on at that site!  Sounds like a sales pitch.   Even so, their numbers mentioned are less than 15 bucks.  

 

If raising the minimum wage to 15 is good then why not $20?  ...or $30?  or 50??!!   Think how fantastic that would be?  Think of ALL the money that would be pumped back into the economy?!  

 

Sarcasm aside... I am afraid that the end result is not going to be as great as folks hope.

 

 

The Minimum Wage Myth Busters

http://www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Woofers and Tweeters]

Just like I said before---Henry Ford took a lot of flack for raising the hourly wage to 5 dollars per hour at his company so they could afford to purchase $850.00 cars. All of the supposed experts said this was stupid but it turned out to be a fantastic move. Then in the 60's the unions got the wages going upward and we had the American middle class supporting the entire planet. The experts were wrong again.

JJK

For starters, it was $5 per DAY  not per hour

 

The $5-a-day rate was about half pay and half bonus.

[Jim Naseum]

Wow... lot of promotion going on at that site! Sounds like a sales pitch. Even so, their numbers mentioned are less than 15 bucks.

If raising the minimum wage to 15 is good then why not $20? ...or $30? or 50??!! Think how fantastic that would be? Think of ALL the money that would be pumped back into the economy?!

Sarcasm aside... I am afraid that the end result is not going to be as great as folks hope.

The Minimum Wage Myth Busters

http://www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Why not $20, $30, or $50? Easy. Because those numbers would throw the system out of balance the other direction. Layoffs would slow new spending, which would lower production, which would create more layoffs. That's called deflation, and it ends in depression.

The reason it's appropriate to raise the minimum now is that the system is out of balance the other way. Minimum has not kept up with productivity gains, and that is depressing spending, and shifting too much income to the highest brackets (0.5%).

Once more, it's all just a matter of tuning a dynamic system for maximum performance. And all economists define that as about 4% annual growth. That's nirvana for the economy and makes everyone happy. If you get there and half the population is in poverty, you've done a bad job with balance. If you get there and all capital is depleted, you've also done a bad job.

This is not hard to learn. One or two texts on economics will be sufficient to understand both micro and macro economics in the USA.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Jim Naseum]

I have a friend who has been in this country for 3 years now, moved from Mexico, and is on the path to citizenship. This guy is working 3 jobs, 2 of them in restaurants, one in a convenience store, in order to make ends meet. Contrast that to the girl Cavuto interviewed, who wants free college and $15 an hour minimum. My friend seems to have a better handle on real world math and economics than she does. He knows that when one first enters the job market one starts at the bottom. He knows that if one cannot find a job that pays enough so one can reach his goals, one can work more hours, and he's willing to work. Who do you think will wind up being successful? I'll bet on the guy that's setting goals and is willing to work

The idealist's error is in not considering the costs of such an entitlement, which will be substantial. Costs will rise, taxes will go up, inflation will increase. As far as a $15 minimum wage the net effect will be that the $15 will be worth less, and the economy will be weakened. Seems a high price to pay considering the overall negative results that will ensue.

Who was it that said a democracy will be successful until the people figure out that they can vote money out of the public treasury? It appears the USA is at that point now, and it's sad. I'm astonished at the attitudes of some of the younger generation. They want the pie in the sky, but they don't know what it costs, they don't want to pay for it, and they don't want to work for it. If America is to remain great it will be because of immigrants like my friend, people who recognize the opportunity this great nation of ours offers, people who are willing to start on the bottom rung of the ladder of success and climb to the top. People who are willing to work hard and earn what they get have long been the backbone of America and will be the future of our country.

We've had a minimum wage since 1938. Hasn't killed us yet in spite of the same dire warnings for the last 75 years.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Woofers and Tweeters]

 

 

Yeah, 50 years ago these we're jobs for kids saving for a car. Now that all the adult jobs have been shipped offshore, this is the crap job left for adults trying to live and raise a family. Have any of you actually seen these people or do you breeze by them like they are ghosts you can't even see.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Shipped offshore because of LABOR RATES. It's now happening in China. They are offshoring to cheaper labor countries.

You keep saying that greed is a new thing. THAT IS A FALSE STATEMENT. You saying it doesn't make it true. Business people have been down right ruthless, keep prices as high as the market will stand, labor as low as it will retain workers and try to put the competitors out of business. Companies are in business to make a profit. The larger the profit, the better for investors' retirements.

Have you or Dave answered: WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO WITH EVERYONE ELSE'S PAY WHO WAS MAKING ~ $15/HR? The ones who EARNED their way up from $7.50 to $12, the ones who EARNED the $16, are you going to bump their pay up by 100% or only give them a $7.50/hr raise? Several people have asked this. Please feel free to ignore this again. What about the tougher jobs where a factory already pays 15, then someone can quit to work at an easier job for the same pay?

Sorry Dave's Burgers went out of business. They are great people. Sorry that they depleted their nest egg to keep people working while keeping cost down.

1. I didn't say greed was a new thing.

2. I answered your question about the pay off others in post 771. I gave a direct, explicit, definitive answer. Read more carefully, please.

3. Now, I have a question for you. How do you inform yourself on economic issues? What are the sources of your information, and what do you study? Which economists do you follow? What business press do you follow?

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

 

I did read post 771. What are you going to do with the vacuum created by not upping the pay to those who already earn the same amount you want minimum wage to be? What do you think people who work harder, should and did earn more are going to do when their pay is equal to an entry level's pay.