Forum Post: Raise the Minimum Wage to $10 an Hour
Posted 12 years ago on June 8, 2012, 5:07 a.m. EST by jrhirsch
(4714)
from Sun City, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
U.S. economic fact. The current Federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. Some states and localities are a little higher. About $15,000 a year full time. You probably think that's OK, they're just 16 or 17 year olds starting out in the working world. They have no skills. They really don't deserve more.
But in the real world 4 million people earn that minimum wage, and surprisingly one half of those, about 2 million people, are twenty five years or older.
Can you remember back to 1968 when a Big Mac only cost 50 cents? The minimum wage was just $1.60, but adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage employee flipping those burgers in 1968 actually made more than one today. In fact a burger flipper today would need to be paid $10.00 an hour to have the same purchasing power as one back in 1968. Relative to 1968 wages, that minimum wage worker is being underpaid about $2.75 an hour, about $5720 a year for a full time worker.
So next time you hear about raising the minimum wage to $10, it's just to keep up with inflation, it is not even a raise. The fed has printed so many dollars, that it now takes 7 dollars to purchase what one dollar bought in 1968. That minimum wage employee has been taken advantage of by their employers for years. It's time they received their fair share.
Raising the minimum wage puts more money in people's pockets. Then those same people spend more money and their spending creates jobs. It's not complicated, and in addition it is humane, and moral, to pay people enough money to live decently. Anyone who argues differently is full of shit and wants to hoard money at the top for the shareholders and executives of corporations.
And, it's really a living wage that we need, anyway. So, never give up! Occupy Wall Street!
Raising the federal minimum wage to $10/hr. ONLY brings it to par with inflation since the year 1968. That was 46 years ago! There surely had to be some productivity gains since that time so the federal minimum wage should be higher than $10/hr. If productivity gained 1% a year for the 46 years and the gain is shared with the workers, the federal minimum wage needs to be about $15.80/hr. = $10/hr. × 1.01^46.
The reason that the federal minimum wage was never indexed to inflation was to allow politicians to call for its increase repeatedly. It is like: let me shove down year after year the economic ladder you are trying to climb higher on and l will talk about helping you climb up a rung after some years. It seems disingenuous but most people fall for that and love their "representatives."
Right. $10 per hour is crumbs. Pay a living wage! Put humanity before profits!
Great points, grapes. Politicians and corporations like to maintain "control" over the masses and appear paternalistic. It's bull shit! And high time workers take back their rights.
Listening to Obama pleading with businesses to increase workers' pay just made me sick. Workers have a basic natural right to a decent wage under the social contract which still exists and always will exist! They don't need charity! They need a government that protects and promotes their general welfare. If this government won't do it, then so be it. We need a new one.
put the economy before hoarding
the people need property
OK, we all know Obama did not create the current state of inequality. It dates back to Raygun. You might be too young to remember? [Is that kind enough?]
The condition in which the POTUS does not & can not exact brute control on congress and business, is called DEMOCRACY!!! Yeah. We have to participate. Or it don't work!! Just don't work!! Won't work!!
I get the feeling that you still don't get this. I'm right, hah?
Uh: Fascism is really bad. We are going there, via Idiocracy!
I guess you didn't bother to watch the official Occupy Wall Street response by Sawant.
You are on the wrong forum. The Democratic Party has plenty of money. Don't they have their own forum?
my eyes! whose brother put this jank together
Too funny. Could those threads there be anymore silly? No wonder they come here.
they're probably under siege and don't know how to deal with it
At least they posted this.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017172456
Not many others did.
I want $20/hour but I'll settle for $15.
She looks like a good candidate
I figured $22.50, but I'll take the $15 base wage compromise and ALL workers a get union with full representation.
Tie the $15 to 100% of inflation, with a two year recalculation update.
Then the recurring argument about it can go away.
just got the stop script box
followed be the sticky page won't let me leave
Raygun and Congress indexed income tax to inflation. That is great so the politicians cannot play the very similar income tax cuts game for their constituents every few years that also allowed them to decorate their tax cut gravy train with earmarks.
The fault of Raygun and Congress was NOT having the minimum wage indexed to inflation so the politicians cannot play the game anymore. That was how the poor and the lower middle class were perennially pushed into the dust by inflation.
Politicians played with class warfare and instituted the alternative minimum tax (AMT) targeted at the rich folk but the politicians again did NOT index the AMT to inflation. The upper middle class was pushed up perennially to have its head clipped by the AMT through inflation. The politicians played the same game every few years about "helping" the middle class and decorating earmarks (garnering campaign donations).
Meanwhile the middle middle-class folk having worked hard and accumulated wealth have their stash chipped away perennially by inflation. This tends to be the most onerous of all of the toe clipping and head clipping because the stash usually represents a lifetime of savings (worst for the elderly) for the largest number of people.
With the toe clipping of the poor and lower middle class, gut punching of the middle middle class, and head clipping of the upper middle class over decades, it amounted to a concerted economic war on the middle class that had gone on for far longer than the horrific Thirty Years War in Europe.
This war was bipartisan, by no means were the Democrats absent from colluding with the Republicans in operating the middle-class chipper, powered by the Federal Reserve.
That's Bull shit and Gobbledygook!
The adamant and blind nature of your complaints are specious at best and propaganda at worst.
Tell us how agreements are made, and how negotiations have to be made?
Tell us how one side gets all and the other side gets nothing?
Tell us how you keep your selves so sexxy?
Tell us how you keep up your extreme right wing agenda!?
Why don't we think corporations should pay taxes
The squeaky wheel gets the oil. As an example, Bob Nelson of Nebraska held up the passage of the health insurance reform bill for earmarks so we did not get the single-payer universal public option akin to Medicare.
Both sides get something good in negotiations but those not present at the table usually gets the hole of the doughnut when it is split. You need not be in the government to know THAT. Were you a U.S. Senator or a House Representative? What do you think you get after the Federal Reserve produced inflation? A half of the doughnut?
I have only one username: grapes. Figuratively speaking, I rode the horses with Reagan (a.k.a. the proud Raygun of SDI which blasted away the Evil Empire and wound back the Doomsday Clock). Horses are the most beautiful creatures and I LOVE them. I like hugging their big, warm noses, feed them hay, and smell their breaths. They are so strong and yet so soft and gentle. Every muscle is a shapely master work of art. Of course, it comes with the not-so-pleasant task of cleaning up the piles of horse dung but that is a small price to pay. I aspire to serve my people whom I love so may love conquer all!
Mitt Romney might be partially right when he said that corporations are people. I think he meant that corporations represent people. If we tax incomes of corporations after they have been passed to the owner people, taxing those people can substitute for taxing the corporation. It would be similar to the case for an S-corp. Mitt Romney had the problem that most people do not understand our tax codes so they may have misunderstood what he meant.
control of the economy goes to who ever has the most money to leverage
That was where our economy gets the cancerous stem cells - loaning out more money than there was so the growth of the returning interests as profits can suck the lifeblood from the unsuspecting working stiffs.
Perhaps you are too young to have "been there and done that." What I described went back more than three decades so you need to be old enough, filing tax returns, and understand the tax codes, politics, and economics. That would make you more than 56 years old to be able to correlate what I wrote with your own experience. Are you that old? Old and conscious enough to shoot down myths about our so-called benevolent political parties?
Tell us Mo Fo!
that's just bully
You consider the current duopoly and capitalist system democratic? When the system is no longer democratic we must stop encouraging it by playing within it. That's the fundamental concept of Occupy. If you don't agree the system is broken, then you have a philosophy other than Occupy philosophy.
What is your alternative?
So you consider two legs the only way? What about quadrupedey?
I agree with Zizek here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgR6uaVqWsQ I think that's a good summation of occupy.
The first question is - Is the system broken? This is where Occupy starts. If you don't think it is, then you part ways with Occupy (which is OK, but you should be aware of that.)
I think a major problem on this forum is people failing to realize the frameworks they put their thinking in. You have to be aware of where your intellectual position is in regards to others, else no fruitful discussion can take place.
So, what is your position here? Do you believe the system is broken or not?
"Summation of Occupy"???
Too bad about the FLAB-SCAM!!!!
Yes, I think his analysis of Occupy is quite correct. Did you listen to the video?
If you disagree, what is your summation of Occupy?
Perhaps that is the wrong word. I meant analysis. You understand.
1% vs 99%... pattycake.
War on!
1% vs 99% sure, but who do you define as the 1%. Some people here do not think the system is broken, so they still believe some politicians work for the 99%. Occupy is built on the principle that the political system is bought by big business so it is completely undemocratic and broken. In that frame of mind, voting is no good because it only legitimizes the system we believe is broken beyond repair. Occupy wants a revolution for the 99%, not little changes to the system. A complete overhaul.
I guess from your responses that you're either unable to describe your position in any detail, or simply not interested in intellectual discourse.
anonymous voting is meaningless
How are other types of voting meaningful?
I'm rooted in san diego with my friend
enough of the meanness
Did you ask Occupy for a job? I heard they were rebuilding a small core team to get the movement back on track. Those are full time jobs, not paid well, but still. Exciting.
petitions
consider it those guys with the money that pays them
but seriously dude, I need a dollar to eat
Try becoming a pimp.
don't sigh petitions you don't support
I don't believe in petitions. That's slackivism.
Matthew 18:3-4 And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven."
Let the young lead with their hearts, for they know where it hurts and can dream of a brave new world. I had dreamt of Raygun vaporizing the Soviet Union (why did it stir up the hornets' nest of Afghanistan?). It came to be, freeing the Arpanet to become the internet.
[Deleted]
I immediately consider you a complete moron OR a "the Following" cult disciple.
Is there a witness?
Stop posting the truth. Or you're might blow up some poor right wing extremists mind with facts.
this bid is too low, abandon thread
the wage issue should be discuses in Philly in July
It is called 'minimum' for a reason. LOL.
crazed right-winger Bill O'Reilly also has called for the minimum wage to be raised to $10/hr.
something tells me this fact makes you uncomfortable.
Not at all. Do you support it?
I have mixed feelings on it. Adults with kids ought to make at least that, but what the F are they doing having kids if the best they can do is flip burgers? I loathe rewarding bad behavior and stupidity, but don't want to see innocent kids suffer for their asshole freeloading parents' mistakes.
For high school kids on their first job, the current min wage doesn't seem so bad. They aren't exactly Doing it to support themselves or a family.
How are parents who flip burgers freeloading? That statement makes no sense.
You think someone with kids flipping burgers is getting by w/o govt assistance? Are you serious?
They are not trying to take advantage of anyone by working for a living. They are being exploited by not being paid fair living wages to begin with.
Who said anything about taking advantage? Who gets to decide what "fair living wages" are? You?
It will be decided by the people. Are you suggesting I don't have a right to speak my opinion on the matter?
"Are you suggesting I don't have a right to speak my opinion on the matter?"
What the f are you talking about? Are you insane?
Me? I didn't call parents who work for a living freeloaders. You're the one making no sense.
Already explained that the first time it was asked. But I guess since you have no answer, you just repeat yourself and add a pathetic attempt at snark.
Let me guess....9/11 truther? If not, you sure "debate" like one.
How are parents, or anyone for that matter, who work for a living freeloaders? Do they not make the effort to do their share of work? do they not make their owners wealthier? Whether they do or do not receive assistance has nothing to do with the amount of effort they put in to contribute to taking care of themselves. If we had a fairer wage system, the problem would go a long way to being solved. Everyone except you seems to know we have an unfair system where corporations receive assistance from the taxpayer and the wealthy pay low taxes.
Question: In what cruel kingdom is it fair to penalize a common man for working by not even adjusting the minimum wage to keep up inflation while we give break after break to elites? Answer: The kingdom of the nutty Birthers.
Market demand and sales are directly tied to the purchasing power of the 99%. This is the only fact you need. The trolls will waste your time but you should instead be out on the web reminding people that no sales = declining economy. If you must debate welfare, then you should understand that self employed persons and society as a whole pay taxes to cover the welfare needs created by underpaying(deadbeat) employers. The way to not increase taxes on the 1% and eliminating higher welfare cost are to ensure people make enough to be self sufficient, have purchasing power, and can pay their own taxes. This requires higher wages.
Thank you Richard. I will use that in the future.
Already answered that the first time it was asked, truther.
Nice to create my support for corp welfare out of thin air. What a surprise, you' re wrong about that, too.
Implying I'm a birther? Laughable, although they are nowhere near as insane as 9/11 truthers.
Ok, now be sure to ignore everything I responded with, make up new shit, and keep avoiding admitting you are a 9/11 truther. I realize how embarrassing it is, so I expect nothing less.
OWS devotees...see what the truthers have done to your movement? Straight down the toilet.
All your doing now is resorting to personal attacks, because you can't attack the question of fairness an honest discussion about wages brings up.
If you are an adult and havent worked your way past flipping and up to management, you probably have a drug/drinking problem. Perhaps.
Well, that could certainly be a possibility, but it does nothing to explain how working for a living can be equated to freeloading.
Working for a living is certainly not freeloading, Im not sure where he got that from.
I do believe if you make minimum wage you get your 200 in food stamps and medicaid, which is probably what he meant?
That really is not the main point of this thread. It's a question of fairness. Are minimum wage workers being underpaid? .
YES
And you can make that judgement based on the massive profits their corporations make from their labor.
Wal-Mart for example makes billions in profits yet we have to pay tax dollars to cover their underpaid workers' food stamps.
Its hard to say. I do know that minimum wage workers tend to move up farily quickly if they are hard workers, because the industries that have those employees are usually pretty quick to promote competency, because there is such an overall lack of it in the workforce.
To a certain extent, adults who are still making minimum wage....sometimes we make our own bed. You have to be a pretty big fuck up, on average, to be older and only making minimum wage.
Are they underpaid? Perhaps. Should that inspire them to start working their ass off? Yes. Does it? Not usually. You just cant save some people from themselves.
And you can't save some people from social injustices when you turn everything into an absolute personal responsibility issue and look no further.
Listen, I have friends that cannot save themselves. You can put all the opportunities in front of them, I've seen it, and they just dont care about it.
Im not saying that social injustices dont happen. But to think that you can make artificial benchmarks and that is going to solve a cultural problem is not going to work either.
Personal responsibility needs to be first though, because without it, it doesnt matter how fair you try to make the playing field. Agree?
Not completely. 1) Why don't they care about themselves? What happened to make them turn out that way? 2) If the minimum wage is an artificial benchmark and has no real economical meaning, then you have no grounds for not adjusting a meaningless benchmark. 3) No, an unfair system stacked against you can make people give up against enormous social odds stacked against their success. The social responsibility to create an environment where people can flourish is of equal importance to personal responsibility. Now, if you went out of your way to create this fair playing field and they still can't make it, then you have a personal problem.
Everyone's story is unique. And its not up to me to figure it out, its up to them. You can go ahead and raise the minimum wage all you want, it isnt going to help the situation, because the corruption at the top is always one step ahead of the politicians (seems how they are the ones that fund the politicians, it makes sense).
There will always be people giving up. The goal is to get people to realize their own potential. FOr most, its just not that important to them. We all get to decide what we want to do everyday. Its all personal choices. Some get dealt a raw deal, some make the deal raw themselves.
I do agree with your point that raising the minimum wage isn't going to do anything to fix the larger problems of corruption. But, I don't believe in absolutes, unless they can be absolutely proven. Gravity is absolute and I can prove it to you. Personal responsibility is not an absolute measure of anything. It matters to some to degree, but just how much is debatable. Get the point.
If the cost of restaurants go up, will someone from the government make me go out as often as I do now or will they start another program to have clean dishes washed anyways? Will they make me get my lawn cut 4 times a month even if I want to drop back to 3 times on the price increase? If not, you'll have higher wages, but fewer people employed. Not exactly complicated.
Economics is extremely simple when you view everything through a laissez-faire lens. But excising the human condition from the equation is simply not an argument I am willing to accept. If an able bodied person is willing to work, they should have certain protections under the law from abuse by the unconscionable market. If you disagree, that is your prerogative.
Great, but pretending that unemloyment isn't part of the trade-offs is simply ignorant. You can't make people demand what they demanded before at lower prices.
The fix for low wages is to tighten supply. Unemployment is much higher for low skill workers. For that to change, the relative supply needs to change. That's done by education and immigration.
Funny, but you support something that will fail and you get to be the good guy. I support something grounded in principles of economics that would actually work, and I'm bad.
You are not the bad guy, you simply look at things through a different economic prism. More than the minimum wage needs to be addressed to get this country back on the right track.
Yes, a lot needs to be done. But a six week course in economics, civics, and personal responsibility would go a long ways.
Fire hosing drop outs into our economy via immigration and bad schools is no way to fight poverty or income skew.
My list would include social responsibility as well as personal responsibility. Adding six weeks of social responsibility to the list ensures people are not only seeing half the picture.
Personal responsibility is well more than half of the picture.
They don't call them personal roads, they call them public roads.
They don't call it someone else's name on the loan agreement, they call it yours.
That is part of the picture. Fiduciary responsibility is the other part. It is a social responsibility not to prey on borrowers.
Like a "Payday Loan" joint. 135% interest on a $2600 loan. What kind of sociopaths run these businesses? They make Mafia loan sharks look like saints.
And usury is still illegal as far as I know. Whats up with that?
The rate limits vary between states.
I know! This may astound and sound absolutely insane - but - there was a segment on the news this last week talking about usury - one of the things they mentioned was payday loans and that some interest rates were like over 400%.
Wow. I guess crime does pay.
With a living wage. More people will be able to afford to go out. Cost can be made up in increased customer volume. That is how profits were made in the good old days. Selling value/quality goods at good market prices to sell much to many making profit off of volume while giving good customer service to enhance return customers.
[Removed]
What happened did you get booted again? Wrongway?
[Removed]
Eat shit - you must be running low by now considering how much you spew.
I'm amazed to come up with new music
All while keeping the fire hose of supply wide open. It doesn't work that way.
But volume will fall on higher costs. That means less demand for unskilled work. You can't make people demand the same volume at higher prices.
Production increases costs decrease. Look at one example.
2008 50" plasma flat screen TV = 50′ Plasma retailed for $5000 or more.
2012 50" plasma flat screen TV = 50′ Plasma retailing for as low as 799.99 today at Best Buy.
And since they are now $799 that means that more people can buy them with their disposable income, so more get sold and overall profits increase.
Exactly the healthy process of supply and demand - continuous process improvement.
pawn shop $50
Yes as Plasma TV still sucks, but even LED and LCD is getting pretty cheap and draws less electricity.
Someone stole my TV and laptop last summer so I got a CRT TV that was too heavy for a scrawny burglar to walk away with. The damn thing had a high-pitched ringing that gave me an ear-ache so bad I wound up in the VA emergency room with an ear infection. Back to digital now but no cable. What a waste of money. Burglars wound up saving me lots of money.
Found a silver lining did you? {:-])
I would not pay for 50"
there's no space in my room
No problem smaller sets are cheaper. Nice thing is you can also use them as a monitor for your PC.
I replaced a 32" with a 27". With all the different aspect ratios it's just a bit too small. 32" is good.
32" is very versatile. That's the size of my bedroom monitor. Allows me to make use of my temper-pedic adjustable bed while working on the internet.
%1 style living. Sweet for you.
Pain management planning and the ability at the time to borrow on my 401K. This was part of my maintenance program to help me continue working after I had been diagnosed with fibromyalgia.
I'm sorry you have that horrible disease. Some people in my family have it too. Stay strong.
Vitamins and nutritional supplements to help support body functions - tell your family. Vitamin D is awesome for helping with the fatigue and melatonin for helping to get to sleep and not be all drugged out the following morning - natural non toxic.
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
So sorry. Did you ask when I got my bed?
I got it back around 2004 to help with my pain management - borrowed on my 401K to do it. The Monitor I got with my PC in 2002.
I lost my job in 2008.
You got nothing - Shit for Brains.
You haven't worked since because of health problems, or you're retired?
Lost my job in 2008 after having battled with the fibromyalgia for 10 years during which time the illness continued to deepen.
Right to work employer.
Living on disability now.
[Removed]
Monitor I bought separately - did not take the monitor that came with the PC - price reduced due to not taking the monitor.
Anything else ? Asshole?
[Removed]
Resorting to personal attacks? Nah, trolls never do that /snark
Supply of unskilled labor increaes relative to demand, price for labor falls despite laws that try to stop it.
The idea too that higher wages for unskilled people will generate demand to offset the reduction in demand because of higher prices is screwy. Why would low income people consume low end services with their now higher income? Why wouldn't it go to healthcare or something else? Really, give restaurant workers a raise, and they go to restaurants with the money? Fail.
Shit head. You fail alright. You fail to understand the concept of a living wage for all. Restaurant workers can go anywhere they want and spend their living wage anyway they want. As can all of the other newly living wage earning workers.
There are more then a few workers throughout business that do not receive a living wage.
we lost gypsyking and girlfriday
GK still visits and GirlFriday logs on when she can as her computer died.
I hope HLS figures out who is making these cyber attacks
HLS ?
home land security
isn't security their job ?
Sure but at the moment "whose" security is the question.
not anymore
it is the freedom of assemble and press that is under attack
BUSTED! DKAtoday claimed he was too broke to drive 500 miles to Chicago for the NATO protests, but admits here he has plenty of cash for 32-inch monitors and Tempur-Pedic Adjustable Beds. If there is an award for wannabes/posers, you lying little Prick, you have won it hands down!
http://occupywallst.org/forum/raise-the-minimum-wage-to-10-an-hour/#comment-757926
BUSTED AGAIN! You claim you bought a PC in 2002 that CAME with a 32-inch monitor? Scan and post the invoice, LIAR. 32-inch LCD monitors weren't mass-marketed before 2005.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/raise-the-minimum-wage-to-10-an-hour/#comment-757934
BUSTED YET AGAIN! In one post you claimed the 32-inch monitor came with the PC you bought in 2002. You now say you did not take the monitor that came with that PC. So were you lying THEN or are you lying NOW? There is no third alternative.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/raise-the-minimum-wage-to-10-an-hour/#comment-757948
Reply to treasure:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/raise-the-minimum-wage-to-10-an-hour/#comment-757941
Fibromyalgia is not a "horrible disease". Many call it a Goldbricker's Disease. If DKAtoday even has it - which I doubt - his fastest cure would be to turn off his expensive 32-inch monitor and roll out of his expensive Tempur-Pedic Adjustable Bed and get some serious exercise by - oh, I don't know - PROTESTING!
To them OWS are "terrorists."
We're on our own.
Maybe the federal government will buy her a new one.
Maybe they got jobs.
I useful job for HomeLandSecurity
would be keeping the internet safe
a keeping communication up and accessible
Typical leftist with a cause and affect educational deficit. Go ahead, support leaving the fire hydrant open spraying unskilled labor into your community. An uneducated dumbass like you will think wages are falling because of badness, but your educated neighbors will know it's a sign of over-supply.
What do you do for a living? Out of curiosity.
The only thing that leads to a lack of demand for work is outsourcing jobs and concentrating wealth in the hands of the few that hoard the money in the Cayman Islands. There is always a market for profit in communities where people have money which means more jobs. In a profitable community you can continue opening more business because there will be more people to spend money as the population grows. This is how society grows. And if done properly you can have a more successful economy. People that make 40 grand a year often spend almost every single dollar, which stimulates the economy. When you have 2 or 3 people at the top of each company hoarding hundreds of millions they don't come anywhere nearing spending a majority of their dollars in the economy. Which takes money out of the economy.
The economy doesn't progress because of transfer payments, it progresses because of value creation. The key to that is education and fhe development of skills.
I'll share some information. I come from a very middle class background, but through education and work, have about $5mm saved and make about $1mm a year, although that can vary a lot. I don't have an account in the Cayman Islands. I do save a lot though, which is part of your point. I save about 40%, but that capital is available for investment.
It saddens me how many have no idea how to build a better life.
you only save a lot cause you have too much to spend. if you only had enough to live.. like some one at 50k then you would not save. be fore real
Well, duh. That's the math. I don't have too much and while I have more than I need, I don't have more than I earned.
What is it with you guys? I do all your heavy lifting for about 30 years and have nothing to show for it but what really bothers me is your lectures about how lazy everyone is. Get over yourself. If you don't have that Cayman account you better get one.
You still don't get it. The discussion is about how to raise incomes for low income people. Idea one is a minimum wage law. Idea two is to dry up the over-supply of unskilled labor and watch wages rise as the market rebalances. Drying up the supply can be done by policing our border and by working on the schools. Idea one fails because it's price fixing and you can't make people still use the same amount of services at higher prices. Idea two works but draws the hatred of liberals.
As wages rise and prices rise, demand is less, but that works because the unskilled work force shrank.
Choose between feel goods that fail or economics based solutions that work. I hate seeing people in poverty, but I know how to change it.
The real question is what's with you guys.
If you want to get all technical about it the issue of minimum wage may no longer be a concern to OWS and it may be left to the OCCUPY movement instead. OWS is going to get into creating credit unions/ banks and they will do away with the OWS moniker altogether if successful. Minimum wage will be an Occupy issue. This is a OWS website, not Occupy site.
Take the money and run RealWorld2. I would.
$10 bid is too low abandon thread
[Removed]
Maybe it is. It's in the ballpark. OWS is too late to hop on minimum wage anyway.
#income and wage issues
If things got crazy, I would. But this remains a center-right country and the risks are extremely low. One can also choose states and that affords a lot of protections. Side stepping the kleptocrats remains possible. A very troubling factoid for Wisconsin is how it is outmigration of its college graduates. They need to reverse it otherwise look out in twenty years.
Funny, but even Canada has seen a lot of reforms. Maybe Toronto will emerge as the free market alternative to New York.
Can't argue there, this is a center right country, It's still very close to center. I wish it was a center left country and we could fire people who don't do their jobs but that's not happening.
See, nice and sensible.
If you had all that money you wouldn't be on this site. Why are you even in the country? I'd be gone. I don't know where. Where do people go these days when they bail? I hear about France. Who cares, I'm stuck here.
It's not as much as it seems and hearing from a grown up is good for these people.
People have a head for business or they don't. Not many can change the way they think. I started trying to bail on the US about 1983. I just couldn't get it together and now I'm too old.
It's more than that. People can learn a few basics about economics and become better citizens. They can learn a little about finance and take a little responsibility and be careful about borrowing money. They can learn that default doesn't make the bank bad. They can learn to make better education choices and that debt and Womens' Studies doesn't mix. It's a long list of how not to be stupid. It makes for a better life than camping an a park.
you are an idiot
Me? No shit sherlock.
not you - the realworld money bags
realworld has a brain, sort of. He wants to talk about "liberals". He's using the old Gingrich trick. A typical ideologue.
well if you want to compare him to gingrich i am ok with that. if you think newt has a brain then i want what you are smoking - well spoken yes but smart - no no no - well maybe he is smart and just a lying sack of shit
He thinks talking about the essence of liberalism is worthwhile but it's just a waste of time. He's lost and it's kind of sad.
i'll go with that
Maybe he doesn't have all that money. This is the internet after all.
No money transfers with the highest skilled workforce in the best company makes the company broke.
Spending money on the economy is very important as is a skilled workforce. You definitely need both.
It doesn't matter how well you're doing in life, their is obvious corruption and exploitation of people. Just look at the abuse of sweat shops back in the 90's. Look at Foxconn making Apple Products. Look at the Federal Reserve giving trillions of dollars to failing banks that pay fat CEO bonuses.
Self entitlement is being in charge of the bank account and therefore thinking all the money made from the company belongs to you. No corporation would be anywhere without it's employees. They'd just have empty stores and no one to move their products and the company would go broke.
Low wages exist because there are people desperate for work and CEO's are often greedy.
Supply and demand. Fire hose the market with unskilled people and watch wages fall.
I was at a janitor union protest in Houston. Houston is awash in unskilled labor because of the border. That's why wages are low. One women was mad because the building owner pays more at its properties in Chicago. I asked her if she thought being an extra 1,200 miles from a major supply source of competing unskilled labor had anything to do with it. Zing, right over her head. Ironically too, about everyone there being liberal would be against border enforcement, no doubt. You can try to help...
Your efforts to proselytize reality here have obviously been futile. But I just wanted to thank you for trying. Reading this conversation has been entertaining.
I preached here for months about the novel idea of learning marketable job skills, for low-skill workers complaining about unemployment and low wages. You can imagine how well that went over...
Thanks. What's particularly messed up is how the other side claims to be the ones that care. Support something futile, purely on emotion and well meaning, and you're good. But bring some critical thinking and choices to the table, things that would work, and you're bad.
Simple fact. Wages will rise when the supply of no skill people falls. Doing that means policing our border and focusing on the schools.
The other side of the coin is that wages will also rise when skill levels rise. What is the point of subsidizing and enabling low-skill careers? Any idiot who can learn to write HTML code can get a job that pays fairly well. Why are we trying to make life easier for an unskilled burger flipper, instead of encouraging him to develop marketable job skills?
That's completely correct. There's is no point.
The other is that the economy is way oversupplied with no-skill people. We need engineers, not more toilet cleaners. The market is telling these libtards something they don't want to hear. The market is over-supplied.
libtards"? Why the offensive anti liberal epitaths? Are you a right wing conservative.? Do you support the 1%'rs.? Are you anti OWS?
You are hilarious with the chauvinism. "You are on zee other side, are you not? Vee have vays of making you talk!"
Chauvinism"? I am simply trying to "out" the anti 99% people. Some people pretend to support OWS but actually are right wing 1% supporters. It's ok. they're allowed. but they should be honest. And anyone who uses offensive comments like libtard should be called out. Some people thing that "retarded" is a nasty slur. So to combine liberal and retard needs to be called out. You support the use of that slur?
I support virtually everyone. So, yes, I'm against OWS. OWS represents a self-important, self-declared faux movement of directionless 20-somethings and lifelong socialists, hardly virtually everyone as they claim. Libtard fits. Occutard fits. And tiny minority fits.
Grow-up Growup5 you looking to introduce yourself as Growup6? At least you are a somewhat honest attacker in admitting you are against Occupy - you should include that in your next incarnation's username - no need to hide just speak your piece. Fly no false flag. Be an honest and open shit-head.
So you support the1% who have crashed the world economy, stolen our govt and perpetrated the largest transfer if wealth from the middle class to the wealthy.? They could not succeed without the support of 1/2 the middle class voting against their own interests and for the 1% criminals who still prey on our families. Is that you? "Go wealthy!! YAY 1%'r F%$k me up the %ss. and don't even kiss me!"
Simple fact.From 2000 to 2007 illegal immigrants increased by 3.5 million. The majority of this time was after Bush was President and 911 occurred. Why weren't the borders closed then?
Both parties sell us out on this. Republicans want an open border to serve business. They don't give a shit because the slum gets built out on the other side of town. Democrats see them as future supporters; they're always looking for more victims to whom they can sell the idea of the welfare.
Repub leadership is conflicted on this. It is true their 1% business interests want the cheap labor. But the racism at the center of right wing ideology and as a result the fear of creating dem voters creates the opposition we have witnessed.
[Removed]
Huh? Nations are entitled to borders, even ours. Liberals are just too stupid to know how an open border undermines the things they claim to care about. They cry and whine about the state of low wages, but then support the expansion of the no-skill labor market. They cry and whine about income skew and poverty, but then support flooding the country with uneducated people that will remain poor and spread poverty. Not exactly good with things like cause and affect, math, or reason those liberals. Some how they think that if the poor uneducated are immigrating, the consequences are suspended if they're brown.
So you don't like liberals, immigrants, and brown people? ok got it. The low wages are not the fault of immigrants it is the responsibility of corps that have increased profits every year by hiring 3rd world workers for pennies and ignoring the american people who have given them everything they have. Borders are just reasons to attack more people we will be better off when we have one world govt. "imagine theres no country" JLennon
The real cost of dining in a restaurant isn't going up, the value of the dollar to buy that burger has declined. The minimum wage worker is getting short changed because his wages have not kept up with inflation.
Can't afford to get your grass cut? Your paycheck hasn't kept up with inflation either. Ask your boss for a cost of living adjustment. Oh, better not, that will increase unemployment.
I agree. The value of our dollar is worthless across the board. Think of all the disposable crap that we are forced to buy today and buy many more times in our lifetime. Maybe you're not as old as I am but I remember very well being able to purchase an item and it would last a good twenty or more years which allowed you to save money in the long run. The cost of everything is so exponentially higher than even twenty years ago and we can't feel confident that buying anything new will provide long-term quality. Another example of how we are forced to spend more - take small minor car parts like tail lights or window switches. I used to be able to go to a junk yard and purchase a tail light cover for literally a few dollars. Today, I am forced to purchase the entire light fixture and it will cost me around 200 dollars, installed. A switch for your car window may cost you around 500 installed. I don't enjoy shopping for anything because I know it's junk. I decided ( like a true American moron) to replace my 1979 washing machine in 07. The washer worked fine but I thought it was time for an ' upgrade'. Since 2007, I've had a total of 3 washing machines because they were all junk and I'm fairly certain this last washer that I purchased in 2010 will die within a year. Aside from all the wasted income that is lost , my time is also spent dealing with these frustrations, leaving a lot less time to experience joy in my daily life. No wonder so many Americans are suffering from anxiety, depression, compromised immune systems, etc...and most probably don't even know why!
Profit has overtaken morality in our country. It is a sad state of affairs when we see someone do the right thing and view it as an exception and not the rule.
I repair laptop computers and they are designed to break. Just one weak point, and when it fails, instead of repairing it, most people will just buy another one. Another example is the Ford Taurus. A decade of head gasket and transmission failures and somehow Ford was never able to fix the problem for the next model year.
I bought a washer and dryer set in 92. Not a problem in 20 years. Replaced the lint screen, that's it. You might look for a good used set.
Everything is designed to break and like you pointed out, people just accept this and buy replacements. Heck, have the crap I used to purchase didn't even work right out of the box. Good idea about the washer and dryer and once these break, that's what I'm going to do. However, these items ( esp. washer and dryers) are becoming more and more difficult to find AND they are becoming more expensive because more and more people are realizing that they want these older quality items. The other issue is that the parts companies have deliberately been given incentives to drive up the cost of repairing these items to such a degree that it's cheaper to just buy a new item. This past winter, I sold most of my modern junk and purchased older antique items that will last me the rest of my life. Now's the time to buy these things while the economy is still tanked. I find it truly alarming that engineers and designers can comfortably resign themselves to creating such flawed crap. I would be ashamed to admit that I had anything to do with creating these things. I'm not sure people realize how all this disposable crap drives up the cost of everything in our world including environmental disposal and cleanup, fuel to manufacture and transport goods, etc... I think this is what the conservatives in our country refer to as ' trickle-down' theory where the high cost of everything gets driven down to the consumer.
Because of labor supply. We've flooded the country with unskiled labor, particularly through immigration. It's fascinating the ignorance of liberals that feel that fire hosing in that supply would be consequences free.
Sure I can afford it. But demand is still elastic; for some people more, for some people less.
If you own a house in a neighborhood with HOA, you will have to comply with all their requirements, which might even include moving your lawn eight times a month.
Sure, maybe. But I can also cut it myself.
People that support these laws have never heard of supply and demand and have never heard of elasticity.
The irony, of course, is that many of the mayors that support this dopey idea, also run sanctuary cities. Support something that's partially causing the problem, and then support something doomed to fail as a solution.
Support what laws, raising the minimum wage?
The proposition sounds quite reasonable considering the actual cost of living, but my RealWorld may diifferent than yours. In mine people really need good education, housing, affordable health care, and food.
Yes, those laws. You can need all sorts of things. We're talking about to get them.
They're not going to get them even at $10 per hour.
Even at ten dollars an hour the worker wouldn't be able to provide for their own basic needs.
Since many do not get full time hours or the benefits that come with them, it puts a strain on the social safety nets, food stamps, public health care, Etc. Then they are blamed for increasing those costs as well. They just can't win.
Raising the minimum wage is an effective form of economic stimulus. The Economic Policy Institute has concluded that raising the minimum wage by a single dollar equates to $2,300 of additional spending by that wage earner's household. All told, they conclude raising the minimum wage to $9.50 per hour would increase spending into the economy by $60 billion. This equates to a .4% increase in GDP and in all probability would lead to the creation of 100,000-250,000 jobs per year. While this in-and-of itself would not accelerate the United States out of its lethargic recovery, it should be a part of a comprehensive plan including the Surface Transportation bill, the American Jobs Act, and others.
Raising the minimum wage would have profound effects on families. As I stated earlier, the minimum wage in 1968 adjusted for inflation would be $10.58 per hour. Between 1968 and today, wages have stagnated and more people are working in lower wage professions. Adjusted for inflation, full-time minimum wage earners have lost roughly $6,000 of income since 1968 until the present, and for a two full-time worker household the loss would be $12,000. I see this everyday in the school in which I teach. Children of parents that I know are working without coats, without adequate care, with absentee parents working multiple jobs, living in cold houses, without food at the end of the month, etc... It is very difficult for adults to hold marriages and families together in such circumstances. At the very minimum, it must be stressful for the parents and even more stressful for children. While it is clear that a student under stress has a very difficult time learning, this will affect that child's future far beyond the economic inability to go to college. It damages our society and our economy permanently.
It damages our endeavor to build a better economy and society in other ways as well. With increasing numbers of people working low wage or minimum wage jobs, it is no wonder they will increasingly vote against tax increases that would help to build a better society. Teachers, firefighters, law enforcement, nurses and other public sector employees in particular should pay attention. A full-time minimum wage earner working 2000 hours a year makes roughly $14,500. If that same earner made the minimum wage they did in 1968, that earner would be making around $21,000 per year. It is understandable that an individual who has seen their income decline in such a fashion, who is having great difficulty providing for themselves or others, would vote against hiring more teachers, firefighters, cops and other public employees. It is also understandable that these people are sometimes envious and even hostile towards public employees and the benefits they receive. While public employees' wages have not increased in any substantial way, minimum wage earners' have lost 1/3 of their pay. If public employees wish better for themselves, their professions or the society they help to create, they should push for a 2013 minimum wage increase to the $10.00 level the president prescribed.
Raising the minimum wage would also have significant effects on the US budget deficit. In addition to the hundreds of thousands of tax paying jobs created, raising the minimum wage would affect the budget deficit in other ways. Some households with one or two minimum wage earners would be pushed into higher tax brackets and would pay more into the federal coffers. Further, the safety net would be significantly less stressed and its price would be reduced. The Earned Income Tax Credit adds money to workers income in the form of a refund given through the IRS. A full-time worker's EITC benefit plateaus around $13,500-$16,500 of income and varies from $500-$5,700 depending on the number of children in the household. Raising the minimum wage would lower the amount payed to the full-time worker through the EITC by pushing these workers from the plateau stage to the phase-out stage of incomes. Further, TANF assistance would also be reduced due to a lessening of necessity. Medicaid budgets, which have swelled in recent years and are currently hampering state budgets and causing cutbacks in all areas, would be reduced as many current working beneficiaries would be bumped out of eligibility. This would surely help both the state and federal budgets. In addition to the hundreds of thousands of new jobs which will lower the burden of the unemployed on the safety net, raising the minimum wage would increasingly incentivize work over unemployment insurance, food stamps, etc... It is clear that the cost of the entire welfare safety net would be reduced significantly.
In terms of the state of the economy, the state and local budget deficits, the effects on low income workers, their families, and society as a whole, raising the minimum wage to the level prescribed by the president in 2008, roughly $10.00 per hour in 2013, would be highly beneficial. The moral reasons to raise the minimum wage are often discussed during congressional debate. I hope Democrats stress the other benefits as well.
Thanks for the input. If some of these conservative minded people would see first hand what is really going on for lower wage workers and their families, they might not be quite so cold in their mocking of them.
If anyone would like to see an accurate view of what minimum wage workers have been making for the last 70 years, corrected for inflation, go here to see this eye opening chart.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:History_of_US_federal_minimum_wage_increases.svg
The dark blue stair steps show the minimum wage increase amount in dollars. The light blue shows the minimum wage corrected for inflation.
In 1968 the corrected wage was about $10 an hour. It quickly lost value due to inflation. That is why the light blue peaks descend rapidly after each wage increase. By 1974 the real minimum wage had decreased by 25%. By 2007 it had decrease by almost 50%.
So even when wages are raised, many times it does not even keep with inflation. Not just minimum wage workers. Inflation effects all wage levels. If inflation over the last 5 years was 15% and your wages hadn't increased by at least 15%, you are losing too.
I agree totally with minimum wage. There's a huge why we've hafor so long. We need it. We don't need our labor here competing directly with the Chinese, or Indians. In America, no one lives on a dollar a day. Period. This helps business by allowing Americans who work damn hard make a living wage to support their families. In turn, there will more demand for goods which is WHAT really drives economies, the RICH only respond to this demand, they DO NOT CREATE IT. The RICH are NOT JOB CREATORS. We are, the 99%
Puzzlin
I wonder how much greater the disparity in income would be without the minimum wage?
Much more. During the turn of twentieth century, we entered a period of the Robber-Barons. The income disparity and work conditions in this country were despicable and horrible stain upon our history.
Given the chance, the rich will do want comes naturally to them, TAKE ALL THE MONEY. These periods occur because many are disillusioned by believing it's just the way it is. Of course, this did ultimately spawn the backlash the created the Union movement which was largely responsible for the benefits we enjoy today which are under assault from the right.
The Puzzler
The forces of greed are always with us. If we let our guard down for just a moment they begin to take hold just like a cancer. Occupy is the chemo that is trying to stop it's spread.
Absolutely, we must continue to fight relentlessly or they will play their greedy tricks without restraint.
People going home after a hard day at work to relax in their plush cardboard box under the bridge?
Should be raised to $12 per hour, at least.
The only way this will happen is if Democrats controlled both houses of congress. The R's will never do it :(
You can raise the minimum wage all you want, but until you address the underlying problems caused by the banking system, the overall situation is going to continue to get worse.
Every person out there who receives compensation in dollars has the same problem as the minimum wage worker. Every month, that paycheck buys a little less. All wages have to be continually raised just to have the same purchasing power.
If inflation is 5%, and you get a 3% raise, your employer is cheating you. But the minimum wage worker is taking a 25% cut in pay relative to a worker from 1968.
Inflation occurs in every country worldwide. It's cause is no mystery. As long as the common person does not understand that their government purposely causes inflation, he will be taken advantage of.
What do you think about an difference for full time vs part time or maybe minimums by age? Adjust the minimum up to $10 for full time employment and/or adults?
Just a thought.
I prefer an equal floor on wages. Why discriminate by age?
A teen who wants to work a part time job filling sno-cones over the summer may not need $10 per hour, while an adult trying to find a job to support his family needs a higher minimum wage to do so.
Okay, then what's to prevent employers from cutting costs by only employing teenagers, putting family supporting adults out of work altogether?
That is a good question. I was only presenting an option that might be more palatable for those who oppose raising the minimum wage.
The minimum wage is always going to need to be raised with inflation and people who value low prices and low costs of business over employee well-being are always going to oppose a raise in minimum wage. Employees don't work with concerns for making profits for business owners and business owners don't go into business with concerns for providing adequate income for employees.
Collapse them.
Turn employees into business owners. Pursue funding for the formation of cooperatives.
I fully agree that people should come together and create cooperatives. How can anyone argue if people want to come together to make things happen.
Where there's a selfish desire for control and profits, there's an argument to be made, no matter how unreasonable.
Here is where I think the challenge lies. You and 5 of your buddies decide to start a cooperative. You invest some money, work hard, and begin to expand your business. Your group decides to hire 4 more employees. These employees join in and immediately benefit from your hard work and investment. They have not had to participate in any of the risk. They have an equal say in how the company is run.
I can see how it could be difficult for the people who took the original risk and put in the blood and sweat to start a company may be reluctant to now give an equal share of the profit and an equal share of control to the next 200 people that they hire. What if 110 of the new employees want to take the company in a different direction - one that you think is going to sink the company? That's tough to swallow.
Yes, it could be tough to swallow but it's a condition that has to be accepted from the very beginning or else it shouldn't be pursued. If there are specific ideas that are important to the original concept of the business, they should be established in the business charter to prevent possible detours from a specific vision. Even though a cooperative is democratic, certain things can be agreed upon and established from the very beginning that all others will have to accept upon the condition of joining.
So a single person should make less than a person with a family. Even though they both do the same job?
I was only using that as an example. I recognize everyone's life situations may be different. Again, I was just looking for options - a compromise of sorts.
To each according to their need would require human beings that are uncommon on this earth. If it was possible, I would populate the earth with them and let the men of violence destroy themselves, never to return.
I agree that the majority of people on this planet seem to be consumed with themselves. Of course, I have to admit that I like living above just my minimum needs.
double, but for now, I'll settle
$20/Per Hour!
Union. Pension. Medical. Dental. Sick Leave. Maternity Leave. Whatever Leave.
just because the economy runs when people have money to exchange
doesn't mean that those who currently have the money want other people yo have it
because the economy runs when people have money to exchange!!
That would be great for those who needs extra cash on their basic needs. Contrary to most merchants, Costco is siding with Obama in his call to increase the federal minimum wage to $9 an hour. In fact, it would do the President one better, supporting a minimum wage of $10.10.
I don't agree. I don't think it's the government's business. It just further concentrates power and causes myriad unintended consequences:
There is no "free lunch" when the government mandates a minimum wage. If the government requires that certain workers be paid higher wages, then businesses make adjustments to pay for the added costs, such as reducing hiring, cutting employee work hours, reducing benefits, and charging higher prices. Some policymakers may believe that companies simply absorb the costs of minimum wage increases through reduced profits, but that's rarely the case. Instead, businesses rationally respond to such mandates by cutting employment and making other decisions to maintain their net earnings. These behavioral responses usually offset the positive labor market results that policymakers are hoping for.
So we pay a lot of attention to motives because they’re important. But the motives of strangers are much less important. For starters, by definition, it is hard to know strangers as well as my friends and family. So their motives will be much harder to read. But there is a much worse problem which is that by definition, strangers don’t have much information or knowledge of my needs, desires, and dreams. They can’t. They’re strangers. It’s hard enough for my friends and family to know me well. But strangers can’t know me well. So even with the best of motives, they may not be able to help me. In fact, they may end up hurting me despite their motives. We know that we sometimes hurt our friends and family even with the best of motives because of our imperfect knowledge of who they are.
This suggests a humility for intervening in the lives of strangers. Those on the other side of the spectrum of government intervention often lack this humility. They claim to know what is best for others–what they should eat, how they should behave in the bedroom, whether they purchase health insurance, and what is the best use of other people’s money. When these plans go awry, when they cause harm to those they would help, they fall back on their motives–after all, they meant well.
So my opposition to a minimum wage or agricultural price supports or bank bailouts or mandatory retirement contributions or mandatory eating habits doesn’t come from my selfishness or greed. Rather it comes from respect for my fellow human beings and a belief (not a faith) that leaving people free to choose what is best for themselves usually works out better than strangers making decisions for them.
"There is no "free lunch" when the government mandates a minimum wage. If the government requires that certain workers be paid higher wages, then businesses make adjustments to pay for the added costs, such as reducing hiring, cutting employee work hours, reducing benefits, and charging higher prices."
They do all of these things right now even though the minimum wage has not risen in years.
I have a respect for my fellow human beings also. But not for those who use fraud and deceit to take more than their fair share. The free market is the most logical system because it is the most democratic. Each dollar spent is a vote. But when the election is rigged against some and in favor of others, the system requires regulation. Because those at the bottom of the pay scale have the least bargaining power, they are frequently taken advantage of. The free market fails in this case because the system is not always self correcting.
Leaving them free to take was does not belong to them has resulted in the greatest disparity in wealth since the great depression. If we let the present state continue, a revolution will grow, and it already has. If this peaceful revolution is not successful, a violent one will follow. It did in 1776. That is how the free market reacts. I am praying that peaceful revolution will prevail.
http://stateofworkingamerica.org/who-gains/#/?start=1968&end=2008
Why was my post deleted on this page....all i posted was three studies? Is occupy against seeing studies now? What the hay??? Whats going on mods? Screening the info people on this site are aloud to see???
Not sure. A few of my replies were deleted on other pages. You could ask Jart.
Remove the spaces between the exclamation point and both sets of brackets.
! [] (imageurl)
COOL! How did you know this was the page I wanted to put it on too?
I research users before I engage with them so I know the positions of who I'm talking to.
Hell, $16 an hour is more like what min. wage needs to be.
Welcome to the forum. The minimum wage needs a better formula to set it's level instead of the haphazard increases that occur every 1 to 10 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:History_of_US_federal_minimum_wage_increases.svg
Maybe it should actually be higher for less than 35 hours per week since benefits are usually not available.
How about we quit letting a private monopoly devalue our currency? -- at gunpoint if neccessary!
I would never trust people who use physical violence to overthrow those who use fiscal violence.
Me neither. That does not change the Newtonian magnitudes and vectors of the force which would be required to fix the problem.
Furthermore, what about fiscal terrorists who won't hesitate to use physical violence? Ya trust them?!
The first step to bring fiscal justice is for the people to open their minds and understand the causes and effects of inflation. The second step, getting the American people off their rear ends long enough to modify our financial structure will take the Newtonian magnitudes you refer to.
Just for discussion. Current minimum wage if you are someone else's dependent. Create a regional sliding scale minimum wage for all others. That sliding scale would reflect regional cost of living. Highlight the pro's and con's of this approach.
Should the government adjust minimum wages because of age, local cost of living, marital status, and a thousand other factors? Another bureaucracy? No, actually I would prefer no minimum wage at all.
Fairness is best determined by negotiation between employer and employee. But in order to be fair, complete transparency is required. The employer should have his books open as well as the employee reveal his living expenses. Only when they both can see the actual nuts and bolts of the others expenses, can a fair exchange of labor for wages can be made.
Currently, the employer has the advantage. He knows exactly what his costs are and a good idea of what an employee is willing to accept. If ten employees knew that the employer was making four hundred thousand dollars a year, while the they were only making twenty thousand dollars a year, the ten employees would have much greater bargaining power.
Employees are in the dark as to a companies finances, especially with smaller companies that are not publicly traded, and are at a severe disadvantage in negotiating their pay. Knowledge is the key, the power that will release lower wage earners from the prison of poverty. Hard work never will.
The scenario that you describe can be true. This will certainly raise the question of realistic pay to employees and employers. Until such a time comes (if it ever could), should there be a type of safety net for the employee? What guidelines would determine this "safety net"? Another type of bargain power is a stronger market for jobs. 10 years ago, it was much harder to get quality employees without stepping up and paying the higher wage. The job market was strong and employees had more opportunity to pick and choose where they became employed. How can this be developed in the future?
The minimum wage, unemployment insurance, welfare are safety nets already in place. Compared to someone out of work during the great depression, the unemployed are much better off.
A strong job market depends on a balanced economy. When certain groups take a disproportionate share, the whole economy suffers, eventually. Like a human body that has it's blood supply shunted away from the extremities to the head. The toes and fingers eventually die from lack of nutrients, while the head baloons with excess. It's unhealthy for all in the long term.
Old socialists have been harping about minimum wage forever so you better wake up OWS. There could be a problem adjusting for inflation because raises are customary on most jobs. Have to look into it.
Don't people realize raise wages or lower taxes ...any extra you have is going to end up in inflated wall street pockets?...how about lower prices, boycotts, rent control, raise wall street taxes by closing loopholes with a flat tax no deductions, shut down trade with despot regimes....everytime you get a raise your cable or utilities go up...why because wallstreet gets it on your fico credit report after you file taxes each year ...they know what you make they know what they can take! So they raise prices and maintain status quo. The only way to win is to take away their power...money is power *we need to BOYCOTT!!!!!*and move to amend
Did you just say "flat tax"?
Tell me you didn't say that.
Yep. Elf is TP and her husband is in the Constitution Party or so her/its story goes.
Must be why so many seemed to miss the end of Councilwoman Sawant's speech, where she urged everyone to give STRONG support to unions.
Yep.
Think about this shooz - who writes the tax laws? Who lobbies to get the tax code written with 700,000 pages of code you can drive a truck through if you hire the correct financial firm achieved through unending lobbying? Who gets the deductions? - certainly not working people...and the poor don't pay in enough to pay much of a percent either -10 percent of 8000 a year is not very much especially if we can begin to get more of our services and upward mobility back by catching corporate tax cheats (who btw do all of their cheating legally since they wrote the laws)? ...so why would you not want a flat tax with no deductions and no off-shore havens? Please watch the film We're not Broke
http://werenotbrokemovie.com/press/
I'm sure it's a nice movie, and i will likely see it sooner or later, but let ask you this about it?
Did it mention that corporate charter impels them to do EVERYTHING within their scope and power to maximize shareholder value?.
there is nothing there that tells them they can't buy our government.
If it's profitable to do so, they are FORCED to do it, by way of their charter.
And that that EVERYTHING includes using, anything they can, to change laws so that they can continue to do even more to increase shareholder value?
And we have, not only tons of lobbies, both semi legitimate and fly buy night.
But we now have the SPN.
We have ALEC
We have things even I've never heard of. a flat tax will nothing to change this.
nothing.
And a flat tax, by way of percentages is extremely HARSH on low incomes, and a fly speck to the 1%. Who's still going to use accounting tricks to hide their money.
If you do not render harmless what ALEC has already done ( and keep in mind they ARE on the flat tax bandwagon.), and stop them and all other similar organizations, dead in their tracks.
It will all just start over again.
Because, by their charter, not to do so is against the law.
Yes that's why we need to move to amend the constitution and take away corp personhood - a construct that can't make decisions like a human should not have the same rights and I would argue now more rights than humans ...the tax codes should also only be land based (please watch Real Estate for Ransom) no payroll tax I've been plugging this film since I saw it a year ago - truly eye opening as much as Death by China (just says what you know finally someone says it perfectly - although the abuses of Chinese Citizens was truly worthy of a peace award for bringing this into such light) and We're Not Broke (a film about how corporations get away with paying zero - even having negative tax rates) - an economy that functions for all doesn't have masses of poor (so a flat tax in a fair and unfixed economy) would be the ultimate equalizer that would allow for it - as I said returning services to the poor is also something we're gonna lose with things the way they are we would get this back...Now subsidies will dwindle and an economy that turns middle class poor means that the poor will continue to be taxed at greater and greater rates as the middle class loses their status and becomes poor - and with the rich evading them altogether - we're basically screwed. As it stands now I see a society headed for indentured servitude.
No deductions, no hacky accounting, no off-shoring. No Corporate Persons - no unlimited campaign financing (public elections)
What's a constitution?
should we have one? We might want to look into that.
a flat tax on property by square foot seems reasonable
many companies ignore employee suggestions to increase efficiency and profit.
I suspect the profit motive may be not how those with all the money run things
but rather just an excuses of abuses and shortcomings
The States already do property taxes.
No matter how you cut it,. a flat tax is a burden on low wage earners and retirees.
if money is not credible , property is the determinate of wealth
That's what CATO's been saying.
guess who founded them?
I thought it was Grapes
they're mothers
Could be.
No, it was their Father that co-founded the John Birch Society.
I'm not Shooz, dimwitted one.
Girl Friday - why do you hate (do ya even read what I write?) I'm on your side asshole - well unless you believe in some new world order (ala TPP)
I don't read what you write anymore--asshole.
That's OK, I answered for you.............................:)
I like your answers better shooz - you're logical and fair-minded - seems Girl Friday is too busy foaming at the mouth to realize I'm on her side ...relax Girl Friday... that's a girl sit now here's a cookie (it's organic) ;-) I admire her stamina if only she could learn to trust she's be ok - it's not her fault look what the crazy right-wing nuts have done to her
Perhaps you should have been helping to fight them?
You will never get me to agree to a flat tax.
It's inherently unfair.
I'm not proposing it's the only or even the answer - I'm saying it's worth contemplating but it could only work if we stop allowing deductions and tax havens (What's fair about a system where corporations have so many deductions they have a negative tax rate and pay nada while the working class struggle to carry all of society as their wages stagnate in the face of ever rising costs - how are we going to help the poor when everyone is poor and the middle class are being taxed into poverty to cover what corporations don't even as they horde and eat all of our resources?) You can clearly see how this is a problem? And it is heading into an indentured society - we're creating a caste system - there's not going to be a middle class soon..and so the poor won't have that help - they will have to work for free to survive (I'm scared that is the plan) noone is going to pay taxes (you'll just work for your doled out rations) hmmm - who is going to buy stuff?? Oh well - guess they haven't worked this one out yet..Wall Street is shooting themselves in the foot at least take comfort in that.
Tax the __ out of the guys at the top who've been ripping me off for years and years and years.
After we get done catching up?
and as fucked up as things are, that could take a while
Then we can talk about "leveling" things out.
Until then?
those fuckers owe us all!
[Removed]
Thanks. I pretty much ignore her.
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
And there it is folks - the great demise of the another fastfood icon. Offer them $3.25 and if they say no, install the damn machines. Geez, I mean, that's what tech is for, right? And soon there'll be a new fastfood chain on the corner.
[Removed]
Yea, I know... why do you think I pay attention?
[Removed]
Nah... I just have huge curiosities.
[Removed]
Better curious than CRAZY.
Curious defenders?
[Removed]
Well, if you say so...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca8Z__o52sk
http://www.nber.org/papers/w12663
Raise minimum wage to $100 an hour! Why not, the amounts are arbitrary anyway.
Why not raise it high enough so a person could live on it without also requiring food stamps, subsidized health care, etc. plus the bureaucracy required to distribute it? Then it wouldn't be an arbitrary amount.
Thats right,if the stimulus had just been evenly distributed among the poor we'd all be in high cotton now.
Take blood from the people, then transfuse back a portion. That kind of stimulus doesn't work.
I am just stating the facts so don't call it sexist or anything. The reason wages were higher was because women weren't part of the workforce yet. When the workforce doubled, the amount of jobs didn't raise in sync. They had to lower but families as a whole started to make more. Let me get something straight, I'm not saying that women should be removed from the workforce but if you have a family with a working spouse, you are making more than you would be in the 60's (inflation included). I just reached the minimum age needed to work and I'm fine with $8 an hour. I think it's great. I plan every year to learn a new skill and because of that new skill, I will ask for my wage to be raised $1 an hour. Why can't you just work hard to make your own living and rely on the government to do it for you. People have been doing this for tens of thousands of years! Ages res proprias tuas.
Women in the workforce increased gradually and steadily since world war two until about 1990 where the number of women has been relatively constant.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1360/working-women-conflicted-but-few-favor-return-to-traditional-roles
So making the argument that women began entering the workforce in greater numbers during the 70's, thus lowering wages is an incorrect assumption.
Also take a look at the chart on this page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:History_of_US_federal_minimum_wage_increases.svg
It shows the relative value of the minimum wage in constant 2009 dollars in light blue. 1968 had the highest relative minimum wage. The current wage is about the same as 1950.
if you are 25 years old and above making minimum wage ask yourself why? why don't you have any skills? what have you been doing for the past 7 - 10 years? are you a teenage mother? are you on drugs? do you have a tattoo on your neck? is your face pierced? do you look like you need a bath? do you have an arrest record?
You might also ask yourself why half of the working population only makes $26,000 ($12.50 an hour full time) a year or less. Tens of millions of people that are the backbone of our economy, but receive the smallest share of the wealth they help produce.
well at $10 an hour x 40 hours a week x 52 weeks a year = $20,800
1/2 the pop are unskilled losers whining about what victims they are
I guess you don't give a crap about them huh? You got yours I guess.
Do you have a point to make?
Congress has a 91% disapproval rate. Americans, in general, might need education, but they sure know a bunch of criminals when they see them.
Yes, they should stop whining and start negotiating for higher wages. Then we'll see how valuable their skills are and it will be the employers who whine.
Will it cause unemployment, no, it will more equitably redistribute income. All of the union wage raises of the past raised the standard of living for the lower rung of workers
the employers wont whine - they will raise the wages to attract the skills. and if necessary, raise the prices as well. simple stuff made blurry by the commie's on the left
I found an interesting graph here showing levels of personal income by education attained.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Historical_median_personal_income_by_education_attainment_in_the_US.png
It clearly shows that education does equate to higher income. But what it also showed was that from 1991 to 2010, real income adjusted for inflation, had changed very little. You would assume that as the economy becomes more productive, the employees would also share in that gain.
High school graduates and below did not increase their wages, but even people with Masters and Bachelors didn't seen any real increase in their wages either. You would assume the employees who provide the greatest benefit to a company would share proportionally in the gains they help produce. So where are the gains going?
This is where gains are going.
This is the all time best speech ever. I also put it out on twitter. If people want a blast of reality straight out of government - then they need to hear this speech. Bernie Sanders in full rant.
http://link.upworthy.com/4fcfcb2462047742c9927ebbi92r.48p/T9iCqi0W1Y4m0TA2C5066
Sanders is a devout communist. what's your point?
"You would assume the employees who provide the greatest benefit to a company would share proportionally in the gains they help produce." Why would you make this assumption?
Because that is the reason why people receive different rates of pay. It is based on their benefit to the company. The person with the Masters degree, his advanced knowledge, is what increases the productivity and profit of the company, so he should share in the rewards his knowledge helped produce.
yea - and that benefit to the company is for the company to decide - not you. geez - where did you ever get the idea you have a say in anything about what the management decision making process is? Start your own company - then you can make those decisions.
Not quite true. It is for the employer and the employee to negotiate the wages paid.
In the case of the minimum wage worker, without the floor on wages, what he doesn't make in wages will be made up in social services, food stamps, county health care, subsidized child care. Either way somebody pays. What is more efficient, paying a living wage, or hiring social workers and bureaucrats to distribute the extra money and services?
A civilized society requires that each person be treated with a minimum amount of respect. When their wages are allowed to be reduced to that of a slave, valued less than a human being, that absence of respect shows the civilization to be vacant as well. If we allow the free market to decide all wages and provide no safety nets, we have become nothing more than animals.
wages are always negotiated. I am an employer I am offering x job at x pay - you decide if you want to accept. If I really want you or I cant get the desired person at wage X - I offer wage Y etc. In a slow economy with an over supply of labor - the employer has the advantage. when the economy is booming the employee has the advantage. It's as simple as that.
Those are the basics, but it's not that simple. When the employer knows all of the business costs involved, and the employee does not, the employee is always at a disadvantage. An employee is also at a disadvantage if his negotiating skills are poor. That is why unions form, to obtain an advocate to bargain in their behalf.
When society drills into peoples minds that they are worth little, they expect little and demand less than they are worth. It's not always the free market that sets their value, it's what they settle for, and if allowed to, that market will gladly make slaves of all who cooperate.
the employee doesn't need to know the business costs - it's irrelevant. I am a business man - I have a hiring sign out front - I am willing to pay $10.00 an hour for the job. Take it or leave it or convince me you are worth more. That's the way it works. If that doesn't work for you - move on - I'll find someone else.
When a sports figure negotiates a contract, his agent knows what the team's finances are. That's the only way he can determine a fair price for his clients services. Without that knowledge the agent is just guessing and is of no use to his client.
When you set a sales price for goods or services in your own business, you also need to know what your customers are able to afford or you could lose significant profit by under selling.
The same with employees, they can't fairly negotiate if they don't have all the financial information. The most overlooked information is what the dollar is really worth in regards to buying power. If the employees knew that, they wouldn't settle for $7.25 an hour.
What skills do your workers need to make $10 an hour?
ok - so go get an agent to represent you. see how that works for you . supply & demand period. unless you need a handout.
you think the people that were working at the 14 million eliminated jobs had no skills? you think the 27000 that IBM is about to eliminate have no skills? the 30000 that citi bank just fired? the thousands of factories that have closed have no skills? it has nothing to do with skills.. When the bankers and corporations decide to crash the economy, and people with 10-35 yrs worth of skills revert to cashiers and fast food. skills are irrelevant.
Society fails when the people are removed from the process.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/society-fails-when-the-people-are-removed-from-the/
you think the 14 million jobs eliminated were all minimum wage jobs? are the 27,000 jobs at IBM minimum wage jobs? please. If you are a laid off skilled worker doing a no skill job why should you be paid more than the job is worth? Charity? If you want high skill jobs to come back - set the conditions for business to do so.
elimination of positions is not 'laid off' and who said any thing about how much was being paid? you seem to think the only jobs being eliminated are at the car wash. not. these are skilled jobs, requiring experience. not some servers at a bankrupt restaurant. i guess the only hope for some one like you is for your company to close down. then you might see the facts.
elimination of positions - what happens to the workers who held those positions genius?
they are terminated. genius.. they are not laid off.. laid off means there is a chance of call back. an eliminated position means there is no call back, the company is shrinking permanently
totally incorrect definition. Terminated is when you are fired for non performance. you cannot collected unemployment insurance. laid off is job relocation, downsizing, etc.
thats terminated for cause. there still terminated , definition - ended.
and what's your point? do expect the company to keep you employed for life regardless of changing conditions?
not at all. my point is.. the 1% has maneuvered the economy to a point that skill or no skill you will not have a job in america.. your original post was a slam against anyone over 25 that doesnt have a good paying job as though it was the fault of the workers (skilled workers) that they cant make a living when it is not. it is the fault of the 1% for turning the economy away from americans having a decent standard of living.
and why are the so called 1% turning the economy away from Americans?
the 1% doesnt care who lives and dies as long as they are fat and happy thats why.. they dont care if the tin shanty towns are in india or indiana.. its called greed and self absorption. thats why they are doing it. they only care that they are making money.. not how they are making it.
how do you know?
theres no way you can prove im wrong either. and you listened.
I think that needs to be revised to the .01%.
they do.. just not in america. and also.. because the customers that buy their products are not working any longer.. ( 5% more unemployed than 4 yrs ago=5% less profits) there is no certainty of profits in the future. so there is no incentive to expand.. just hoard the money
so all speculation - "the 1% doesn't care who lives & dies." there is no way you can prove that. you are all demagoguery. what a joke. you expect anyone to listen to you ?
i can see the economy crashing.. i can see the 10% unemployment rate, I can read the news about thousands of american jobs being eliminated and none being created.. these are all things that are controlled by the 1%. caused by the 1%. how else can it be interpreted? arent they all educated , at least as intelligent as myself? if I can see it.. they can see it. and by all accounts knew it was the likely outcome of their business behavior
and why do the 1% not invest to expand business which as a bi product creates jobs?
Look at the world.
Better question is - why do you seem to be unaware of reality.
as expected - cant answer the question and deflect to the liberal talking point. even still - so what ? people do what they can to do what's in their self interest. you included.
Again with that fair share shit! Flipping burgers for $10 must not happen. A living wage forced by government decree might as well be another form of welfare. If a person flips a burger for $10 an hour, who will pay for that? To hell with the living wage. A wage increase is an incentive for learning new skills, more education, more experience. It is a shame that hard working unemployed folk have to work for that kind of money. So let's improve the economy by giving the money back to the people. A living wage will be a detriment for improving the economy
I know this never gets added into your incentive calculus, but have you ever thought that the smartest and most hard working might take offence to your over bearing, and manipulative incentives and decide to make due with less, and leave the nation to fend for its self. I don't know where you come from, but where I grew up, we take offence to manipulation and are not quick to chase the carrot. Besides, the way the tax schedule is set up it almost seems wiser to get by on the bottom wrung. Not chasing the American Dream gives me the pleasure to stick it to all those incentive creators. I know such an idea can't penetrate the mind and the ego of the average American, but it seems like a no brainer to me.
If a sizable number of hamburger flippers learned a new skill and got new jobs elsewhere, the price of your burgers would go up due to lack of burger flippers.
If you like cheap burgers, keep burger flippers flippin!
there would be a new bunch of new employees ready to take their place.
The supply of low skilled workers is not inexhaustible. And the wages of mid skilled workers would go down as the supply increased. If you were mid level, would you really want to compete for lower wages?
Better skills do not guarantee a place in the workforce. The economy requires a proper proportion of workers and a glut in one area, creates a void in another. If 1 manager is required for every 10 workers, doubling the supply of managers would rob the economy of workers from another part, raising wages for one group and lowering wages for another.
"The supply of low skilled workers is not inexhaustible"
As long as babies grow up to be teenagers and the borders remain porous, it is inexhaustible. It is a no/low-skill job. The first step on the ladder for millions of workers who go on to bigger and better things.
The large supply of low skilled workers is due to our borders purposely left open to benefit the rich and middle classes at the expense of the poor. Even after 911, the borders were still left wide open. Immigration was steady until 2008 when the economy turned sour as shown in the following graph.
http://flapsblog.com/2011/02/02/illegal-immigration-in-the-united-states-remains-unchanged-due-to-recession/
And our own citizens who become teenagers? Not part of the equation?
Another binary ows-er? Incredible!
Our teenagers make up part of the normal supply of workers. Their numbers can't be varied by legislation or deportation so they are a relatively fixed part of the equation.
Large numbers of immigrants, legal or illegal, are a variable in both the supply and demand side of our economy. Someone benefits by their importation or else they would not be allowed entrance. Those who benefit control the flow.
Ok, so young Americans are part of the equation. As for illegals, the left wants the votes and will destructively pander to get them (as the president just did), and both sides want the cheap labor. What I find particularly galling is how labor unions support a party that allows illegals in, which puts downward pressure on wages at the low end. It's a sad joke.
Inflation was 7% from 2009 to 2011. Did you get a 7% increase in your paycheck? If you made $40,000 a year in 2009, you need to make $42,800 just to keep even. If not, you're getting screwed too.
Wages are low because of an over-supply of unskilled workers. Dry up that over-supply and watch wages rise. The over-supply comes from drop-outs and immigration. So, work on the schools and enforce the border. Legislating wages without dealing with the glut of unskilled people will fail.
stop lying
Honest. Find a community college, take an economics class, and find out for yourself.
Take an economics class that won't even tell you where money comes from? Or other things that can be money aside from the almighty monopoly of national currencies.
Illegal immigration has a large impact on wages. From 2000 to 2007 illegals increased by 3.5 million. Even after 911 the border was not closed. The reason? To keep low income wages low. The middle and upper classes benefit at the low wage earners expense. That is why closing the borders is endlessly talked about but never accomplished. So much profit is gained by keeping the borders open.
Without a minimum wage floor, unemployment will go down, but so will wages. Instead of $7.25 an hour the lowest wages might be in $3-$5 an hour range. There is a point where slave labor is reached. If we allow the market to be the sole decider of wages, then we have become animals. Let the strong survive and the weak starve. The minimum wage is the result of our being human..
It isn't just the illegals, it's alsounskilled immigration. The huge numbers of Somalis dumped off in Minnesota does the same thing. The market just cares that all you can do is dry a car or cut a lawn, and not design a building.
It does have supporters. Business wants it because of wages and because the slum gets built out on the other side of town, Liberals want it because they want more victims to represent and aren't good at reasoning through consequences. I live in a well off town. Liberals I know support it simply because they don't want to be against brown people, they enjoy the benefits, and again, the consequences are across town,