Minimum wage. Should it be $15?

[Jim Naseum]

I'll tell you what changes everything, is when people actually read the thread before making wild assumptions about what others have posted. 

[Paducah Home Theater]

Yeah, it's a speed bump. And as I said earlier, which I doubt that you read, it will be phased in over several years, and I'm good with that. I never said it had doubled in the past.

LOTS of people want it doubled, NOW. And they want benefits, starting, well, NOW. That's never been done before. If you want to phase it in that's great but I have a feeling that this is a minority view.

[Travis In Austin]

Both sides are immoral?

It was a typo. I meant to say the buyer was moral and the vendor was immoral. My typing is deranged by the automatic keyboard on tablets@!

Yours is way better than mine. I figured that was what you meant.

I don't know if the buyer is moral or not, he certainly isn't immoral. I would say the vendor could be either immoral, if he had knowledge that he was selling poison.

Whether he had knowledge or not, whether he was negligent or not. It is strict liability in that case, the vendor pays, at a minimum, regardless of whether there is any negligence or not. This is because the capitalist system is constrained (at least it used to be) by an evolving legal system which is based on moral judgements.

It is actually a great example, it is pretty much what the tobacco litigation was all about, the Deep Horizon/BP litigation, punitive damages, etc. Does the law provide a remedy? is that enough of a deterrent to prevent immoral behavior? It won't eliminate it, nothing ever will, but does a realistic job of discouraging that conduct.

My example was meant to show intentionally immoral behavior on the one side, and moral on the other. The vendor in my example knew it was poisonous and sold it anyway. The buyer accepted the offer and paid in full. That was his moral obligation.

As to the law, I have not been making a case for the law. There are enough legal experts that I needn't make that case. My case revolves around moral behavior, not legal. Usually, the law exerts less influence on behavior than morality, which encompasses ideas like the greater good, or do no harm, and do what's the interest of clients.

I propose, that we are only accept the amoral economics of capitalism because capitalists** have the most power to drive whatever system they prefer. People seem not to see that many businesses today are NOT capitalist businesses, but rather are operated as individual enterprises wherein the owner applies a moral code, or ethical code, of his own choosing. Whereas, there may be no companies in the S&P 500 who have any moral code written into their corporate charter. I've never seen it, but admittedly have not read ALL of them. I do know that stockholders regularly sue executives for NOT maximizing profit, and the law is on their side.

**People who amass capital to finance the building of factories and machinery that employ wage earners. e.g. I exclude "hired hands" like CEO, who work for wages and bonuses.

There I think you are blurring the line between the economice system and form of government. Capitalists have the power, or lack of it, depending upon what form of government they operate under. If the political system they operate inder has a legal system, they are constrained by that legal system. If it political "system" is an individual, like a monarch or despot, they are constrained by that individual, if they are allowed to exist at all.

In the US, the economic system, whatever you want to call it, operates within the boundaries established by the legal framework at every level, local, state and federal. The economic system doesn't operate in a vacuum, it is shaped and exists in accordance with the public policy and moral code established and allowed at each of those levels.

[Mallette]

That would mean the "judicial system" has no way to know right from wrong

 

My God, I HOPE not.  The judicial system has NOTHING to do with right and wrong.  What are you thinking?

 

Dave

[Mallette]

You're quite confused over what the moral code defines.

 

I have had no comment on moral codes so not sure what you think I am confused about.

 

Dave

[garyrc]

 

Good.  Amoral systems are the best kind. 

 

Dave

 

Would enjoy an amoral "health care system?" 

 

Would you enjoy an amoral military? Treasury? 

 

I presume you don't believe in the Constitutional requirement to promote the general welfare? 

 

 ... and while promoting the general welfare is specified in the Constitution, capitalism is not.

[Max2]

 

 

Do we really need to double it?   Aren't we just handing trophies out to the masses that don't deserve it?  This seems to fall in a pattern of entitlement where so many think they deserve, but so few are willing to step up and actually engage in their job for the additional pay.

 

What about welfare? 

 

Wont workers be denied for some assistance if they immediately start making 29K a year?

 

Wont the companies just start marking things up to cover the losses such as trucking companies have to do when the price of crude has them by the short hairs?

 

It will all trickle down to the few middle class including the marginal local mom and pop shops that are left which catch the brunt in the long term anyway.

 

If your argument is that workers don't deserve it, then what about when it goes the other direction: Do utility companies deserve minimum rates that guarantee profits? I just want to see if your holding each side to the same standard. 

 

 

 

What is the same standard?   When has it ever been "the same standard" ?

 

 

You have to carve out your own brother.  You cant cry on the sidewalk forever about corporate America and what the man gets and what you don't. You either go after it or you fall in the cracks. People here would laugh at my "base" pay and these new 15 dollar an hour folks would say, "no way" If I told them my base. I have to sell something and a lot of it to make my world go around.

 

Sure, this world is far from perfect, but you will never get what you're preaching here.

 

 

You want that utility company to be successful so it keeps paying dividends on the stock you own in said account. Yes, we can complain about our insurance policies or utility bill that keeps going up, but you must gather back what you can from other avenues. Work is out there, better jobs are out there away from these gateway entry positions.  You have to want it, and I will be one to say that the majority of these people don't have the desire to handle a more responsible position than what they have. 

Edited November 18, 2015 by Max2

[CECAA850]

What's the over/under on whether the actual survey received most response than this thread?

 

 

I'm taking the under all the way.

[Fjd]

 

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

$5 an hour? Henry Ford? I don't think so. You may want to go back and check your facts on that.

I think you will also find that the raise had nothing at all to do with creating a workforce that could afford to buy his product. It was to cut the turnover and training time of the labor force and avoid downtime from people walking off the job.

In other words, he raised wages in order to decrease costs. The Ford raise is a case study that is taught in business schools all across America, or at least it was when I went, as an example of when raising wages can actually result in lower overall labor costs.

The raise was not automatic, it was partly, or mostly, a bonus. The employees had to meet many conditions. One of which was to have to open their homes to inspection by Ford representatives.

 

 

 

 

The sale of cars in this Ford example sure is a classic example of the supply curve and demand curve interaction and potentially a shift to the right of the supply curve given the implementation of the assembly line.  

 

The aspect of the new-found purchasing power of the worker may have been understood and contemplated by the economists of the time, but not Ford; however, this purchasing power ultimately became a key benefit overall and became the foundation for middle class growth on the “demand” curve.

 

Ford had installed an assembly line system that would cut the time of assembling one car down from 12 hours to 1.5 hours; therefore, the initial increase was that eight cars could be assembled in the time it previously took to assemble one car.  Essentially, there was plenty of capacity on the “supply” curve for building cars.

 

However, the work sucked (e.g. monotonous and strenuous) and Ford was quickly losing a rather significant portion of the workers it hired for the assembly line within the timeframe of a couple of weeks.  I’ve read where the turnover rate was about 370 % in 1913 and that the company had retained less than 14,000 employees of the 52,000 that were hired and trained for this new assembly line.  Essentially, this additional capacity could not be used efficiently and effectively even though there seemed to be plenty of capacity on the labor portion of the “supply” curve to work the assembly line to support the additional capacity in assembling of cars.

 

With the $5 a day pay rate, the Ford labor situation stabilized and supply of cars expanded exponentially and the workers even started to buy many more consumer products of all types in their respective communities, regardless of being able to afford to buy a car or not.

 

On a side note, I did some analysis using the consumer price index calculator.  The $5 per eight hour day in 1914 translates to roughly $119 per eight hour day (~ $14.87 per hour) in 2015.   Using $58 per eight hour day ($7.25 * 8) in 2015 is equivalent to $2.44 per eight hour day in 1914.  More than a steel worker in 1914 but less than a coal miner in 1914.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Fjd

[Jim Naseum]

it is shaped and exists in accordance with the public policy and moral code established and allowed at each of those levels.

 

What's the moral code established for Chase Bank, or Monsanto, or Massey Energy? 

[Mallette]

What's the moral code established for Chase Bank, or Monsanto, or Massey Energy?

 

Ask them.  It's their issue,  not the publics.  If they violate the law that's different but not a moral issue.

 

Dave

[Jim Naseum]

There I think you are blurring the line between the economice system and form of government.

 

 

No, not at all. 

 

Our government is constructed in accordance with the Constitution, which has as its preamble, a statement of moral purpose. Our economic system is not strictly defined, and we have private ownerships, corporations and other forms of business. Taken philosophically, the entire western world runs on the economic model of capitalism. And when I say that, I mean the theory of capitalism, which is a set of tendencies that taken as a whole separate it from say, "feudalism"
or "slavery" or "mercantilism". Here's a quote from the US State department:

 

"In every economic system, entrepreneurs and managers bring together natural resources, labor, and technology to produce and distribute goods and services. But the way these different elements are organized and used also reflects a nation's political ideals and its culture.

The United States is often described as a "capitalist" economy, a term coined by 19th-century German economist and social theorist Karl Marx to describe a system in which a small group of people who control large amounts of money, or capital, make the most important economic decisions."

In capitalism, there are principles which make it so. One of those principles is the purpose of profit. There is no additional purpose within capitalist doctrines for something like, "to benefit Mankind." Nor is there an aspiration to follow the Golden Rule, or other known "moral precepts." Those are simply not part of the capitalist doctrine. 

I just demonstrated thoroughly that many other of our important institutions follow strict moral codes. Moral codes are the most common method of all human relations. When you buy and sell speakers with other fellows, you know doubt insinuate the existence of a personal moral code, which includes honesty, straight dealing, doing unto others and more. That's the normative of most human relations. These moral codes can come from religions and other philosophical institutions we aspire to. NOW, please notice, that within the doctrines of capitalism (not business or commerce, but CAPITALISM) there is no moral code of any kind. Not even the most basic commitment to honesty can be found in the doctrines of capitalism. That's because it is an AMORAL concept of business. Why this is so shocking to people, I can't answer. But, that's simply the reality of it. Even Fedalism had a moral code. It wasn't a great one, but at least it had one. 

So, if you are at the Elks club, or in your doctor's office, the relations you have with those people will be engulfed by the moral code they ascribe to. But when AJAX Capitalist Corporation plans it's new products and services, they do not need to take any consideration of your well-being, or what would be good for mankind, or what would advance the civilization, or what would be best for most of the people, and they don't even have to be particularly honest, except with respect to explicit laws. Tobacco companies followed the law and yet created very hazardous products for humans. Now, this is not an argument about your RIGHT to endanger your health, it's an argument about their lack of moral guidance. We are not talking about YOU, we are talking about THEM. Do we want capitalism to produce bad effects, ill health, dire conditions, poverty, addiction, or do we want them to work for "the general welfare" - as we demand of our government? As we demand of our doctors, lawyers, realtors, nurses, army officers, and many others in society? 

[Mallette]

On a side note, I did some analysis using the consumer price index calculator.

 

Love the stuff you did there.  However, it still doesn't tell the whole story.  There was a LOT less to buy in 1914.  I am not sure any calculator takes that into account. 

 

No internet, big screen TVs, etc.  Just food housing, and that model T. 

 

REAL comparisons are really difficult. 

 

Dave

[oldtimer]

 

On a side note, I did some analysis using the consumer price index calculator.

 

Love the stuff you did there.  However, it still doesn't tell the whole story.  There was a LOT less to buy in 1914.  I am not sure any calculator takes that into account. 

 

No internet, big screen TVs, etc.  Just food housing, and that model T. 

 

REAL comparisons are really difficult. 

 

Dave

 

You left out books, if of course as Stew would say, you were showing off.  In some places there was a library.

[Jim Naseum]

With the $5 a day pay rate, the Ford labor situation stabilized and supply of cars expanded exponentially and the workers even started to buy many more consumer products of all types in their respective communities, regardless of being able to afford to buy a car or not.

 

Great job FJD. 

[Jim Naseum]

 

 

 

Do we really need to double it?   Aren't we just handing trophies out to the masses that don't deserve it?  This seems to fall in a pattern of entitlement where so many think they deserve, but so few are willing to step up and actually engage in their job for the additional pay.

 

What about welfare? 

 

Wont workers be denied for some assistance if they immediately start making 29K a year?

 

Wont the companies just start marking things up to cover the losses such as trucking companies have to do when the price of crude has them by the short hairs?

 

It will all trickle down to the few middle class including the marginal local mom and pop shops that are left which catch the brunt in the long term anyway.

 

If your argument is that workers don't deserve it, then what about when it goes the other direction: Do utility companies deserve minimum rates that guarantee profits? I just want to see if your holding each side to the same standard. 

 

 

 

What is the same standard?   When has it ever been "the same standard" ?

 

 

You have to carve out your own brother.  You cant cry on the sidewalk forever about corporate America and what the man gets and what you don't. You either go after it or you fall in the cracks. People here would laugh at my "base" pay and these new 15 dollar an hour folks would say, "no way" If I told them my base. I have to sell something and a lot of it to make my world go around.

 

Sure, this world is far from perfect, but you will never get what you're preaching here.

 

 

You want that utility company to be successful so it keeps paying dividends on the stock you own in said account. Yes, we can complain about our insurance policies or utility bill that keeps going up, but you must gather back what you can from other avenues. Work is out there, better jobs are out there away from these gateway entry positions.  You have to want it, and I will be one to say that the majority of these people don't have the desire to handle a more responsible position than what they have. 

 

 

Maybe you didn't understand my question?

 

I'm asking if you are applying the same reasoning for companies that you apply for workers. If companies can get profits "guaranteed" by government, why shouldn't workers also get a guaranteed a minimum wage? How is your reasoning different for those two economic actors?

[Jeff Matthews]

No, it's not.

[DrWho]

The reason why NFL players make what  the market will bear is not because of supply and demand, it is collective bargaining.  An individual, rarely, has enough bargaining power to demand "what the market will bear."  The concept that a person has the option to either accept the position, or not, is really a fiction in the lower economic strata.  The job for those people is the difference between being homeless, feeding their kids, etc.  In a bad economy the demand for labor goes way down, and what jobs are available get flooded with applications.

 

 

Interesting point about collective bargaining - I hadn't considered that.

 

I wanted to extend a bit on your idea about the lower economic strata not having much of a choice about a crappy job. First, I totally agree with what you're saying. But I wanted to propose the idea of "income mobility", which is the idea that a person usually doesn't stay at one job forever. So when there is immediate need, I agree that the individual might take a lessor paying job just to make ends meet. However, the mobility of our economy 'should' be structured in such a way that it's not a permanent position. In other words, the freedom of a worker to change jobs creates an upward pressure on income...it's just delayed in time for the individual (theoretically).

 

In other words, I think it's incomplete to discuss minimum wage (income inequality) without also considering income mobility. Has anyone published any numbers on the changes in mobility over the years? Is that even a traceable concept?

[Jeff Matthews]

In other words, I think it's incomplete to discuss minimum wage (income inequality) without also considering income mobility. Has anyone published any numbers on the changes in mobility over the years? Is that even a traceable concept?

 

I can't vouch for the figures, but one of the early pages contained a map of the US with relative mobility figures for various states or cities.  It was interesting to see, but I can't really vouch for it.  Whoever posted it might be able to post a link back to it.

 

I seem to remember that in the least mobile areas, a person had a 1 in 20 chance to go from the lowest 20% to the highest 20% (or vice versa).  The most mobile areas had a number of like 1 in 10.  I remember thinking, "Wow!  Those aren't too bad."

 

I think it was Oldie or Jo who posted the map. 

Edited November 19, 2015 by Jeff Matthews

[Woofers and Tweeters]

Now that we've been schooled

 

It’s not a political problem; it’s a math problem.

 

Love some of the write ins at the bottom