A higher minimum wage will hurt some workers

[BigRob]

Does the name "Greece" mean anything to you?

Greece is the example of "capitalism" you want to highlight.... Because clearly years of bailouts and never being allowed to default or fail is a tell tale sign of capitalism at work...

What is more capitalistic than the 6 biggest banks and financial institutions?

Letting them fail when they destroy themselves....

And they threatened to take down the entire economy if nothing was done. You "pure market capitalism" advocates are idealists much more than you are realists.

In other words, if we objectively looked at the situation, clearly we would all agree with you....

 

[Senter]

If we have "plenty" just waiting to be created, why haven't they been created?

Republican obstructionism.... --as though it's a mystery to you.

If you have to rely on the government to force these jobs into existence that hardly sounds like a good solution. Government has no business picking winners and losers.

"Picking winners and losers"? That's a good right wing mantra. Too bad it's so irrelevant. No "picking" is done. Government was essential in the development of the computer and internet. Government was essential in the development of the nuclear bomb. Some businesses succeed; some fail. For every Solyndra there are 5 or 10 successes. And if government doesn't fund huge projects to employ millions, we will remain stuck because business is too busy taking advantage of low tax rates to undertake new questionable ventures.

I would be thrilled to opt out of Social Security if given the option.

Predictable. And that would be a foolish choice. Righties know nothing about financial planning when they say things like that. Social Security was responsible for saving millions from elderly poverty. But the right wants those dollars for themselves, in their paycheck. Yet they like to brag (lie?) about how much they contribute to charity.

In other words, everyone will be mandated higher wages from those that do not have to pay them....

huh? The wages come from businesses earning revenue from sales of goods and services. So I don't know what you mean. And my point was that if wages had kept up with inflation, we wouldn't be having this conversation. It would be a done deal.

If you want to earn more money, make yourself more valuable. Let's face it, unskilled labor is not that valuable. It is basic supply and demand. There is a lot of supply of unskilled labor and limited demand - therefore low wages.

Everyone earning a low entry-level wage earns more as they learn their job. In addition, some people are in situations that don't allow for pursuing additional training, like single parents for example. So your position is some sort of concoction of good-sounding nonsense.

The solution is not a new mandate to make unskilled labor even more artificially expensive. The solution is to learn a skill that makes your labor more valuable.

As I just showed, that isn't always possible. But "more artificially expensive"? Is inflation an "artificial expense"? Why is it you oppose tying wages to inflation and want to see them left to the discretion of businesses, AND you want to leave profits, CEO pay, and prices for goods and services to the discretion of businesses as well? You want to stack the deck in favor of businesses and disadvantage the worker. Why?

 

[Senter]

Greece is the example of "capitalism" you want to highlight.... Because clearly years of bailouts and never being allowed to default or fail is a tell tale sign of capitalism at work...

The banks told the Obama government that if they failed they would take down the entire economy and asked for a bailout. If capitalism is so great and self-correcting, then why would they make such a threat and call for government to save them?



(Me: "What is more capitalistic than the 6 biggest banks and financial institutions?")

Letting them fail when they destroy themselves....

--and let them take down the entire country because they have been allowed to grow so huge that they're called "too big to fail".

 

[BigRob]

Republican obstructionism.... --as though it's a mystery to you.

Is your argument really that if Republicans would just get out of the way the government would create millions upon millions of high paying jobs and everything would just be grand??

"Picking winners and losers"? That's a good right wing mantra. Too bad it's so irrelevant. No "picking" is done. Government was essential in the development of the computer and internet. Government was essential in the development of the nuclear bomb. Some businesses succeed; some fail. For every Solyndra there are 5 or 10 successes. And if government doesn't fund huge projects to employ millions, we will remain stuck because business is too busy taking advantage of low tax rates to undertake new questionable ventures.

At the core here your argument amounts to government is more efficient and better creator of jobs than the private sector. Can government do some things well? Of course. But we are not going to agree on the underlying premise here.

Predictable. And that would be a foolish choice. Righties know nothing about financial planning when they say things like that. Social Security was responsible for saving millions from elderly poverty. But the right wants those dollars for themselves, in their paycheck. Yet they like to brag (lie?) about how much they contribute to charity.

I don't want it because I can get a much greater return on it than social security is going to give me (if they give me anything at all). If you want it - great, keep it. I don't want it. Let me opt out. People would be dramatically better off if the money was deducted and put in a private account than the current system.

huh? The wages come from businesses earning revenue from sales of goods and services. So I don't know what you mean. And my point was that if wages had kept up with inflation, we wouldn't be having this conversation. It would be a done deal.

Government doesn't have to pay the wage - they just mandate that they must be higher. And you openly admit that inflation adjusted minimum wage would be in the ballpark of $10-11. That is what...40-50% lower than what fast food workers think their unskilled labor is worth?

Everyone earning a low entry-level wage earns more as they learn their job. In addition, some people are in situations that don't allow for pursuing additional training, like single parents for example. So your position is some sort of concoction of good-sounding nonsense.

Is there any statistical data on this claim?

As I just showed, that isn't always possible.

Not really - you just threw it out there with nothing to substantiate it.

But "more artificially expensive"? Is inflation an "artificial expense"? Why is it you oppose tying wages to inflation and want to see them left to the discretion of businesses, AND you want to leave profits, CEO pay, and prices for goods and services to the discretion of businesses as well? You want to stack the deck in favor of businesses and disadvantage the worker. Why?

I want the market to set wages....

Inflation is not an artificial expense...but inflation is low, and according to the BLS again (reported on by the WSJ): "Spending by households on many of modern life's "basics"—food at home, automobiles, clothing and footwear, household furnishings and equipment, and housing and utilities—fell from 53% of disposable income in 1950 to 44% in 1970 to 32% today.

Even though the inflation-adjusted hourly wage hasn't changed much in 50 years, it is unlikely that an average American would trade his wages and benefits in 2013—along with access to the most affordable food, appliances, clothing and cars in history, plus today's cornucopia of modern electronic goods—for the same real wages but with much lower fringe benefits in the 1950s or 1970s, along with those era's higher prices, more limited selection, and inferior products.

Despite assertions by progressives who complain about stagnant wages, inequality and the (always) disappearing middle class, middle-class Americans have more buying power than ever before. They live longer lives and have much greater access to the services and consumer products bought by billionaires."

 

[Lagboltz]

Slow down....28 million workers DO NOT earn minimum wage. The Bureau of Labor statistics (The data charts begin on page 4) puts the total number at 2.9 million. It further breaks it down by age. So if you look at those age 25 and over making minimum wage (people probably less likely to live at home or be in school), you are left with 1.5 million workers.

If the labor force is 156 million, then we are talking about roughly 1% of the workforce.

The site where I originally got statistics is no longer the same. It may not have been referring to people at minimum wage but referring to people who would benefit from the new suggested minimum wage.

Well are we suddenly talking about "low pay" or are we talking about "minimum wage"? They are drastically different things. Increasing the minimum wage is not going to solve "low pay" problems. I'll agree that the perception of welfare queens is overblown (but not unfounded).

Talking about low pay: Statistics from census.gov say that 45 Million Americans, or 14.5% lived below poverty level (2012).

 

[Senter]

Is your argument really that if Republicans would just get out of the way the government would create millions upon millions of high paying jobs and everything would just be grand??

Yup

At the core here your argument amounts to government is more efficient and better creator of jobs than the private sector.

There is a time a place for everything. When business is not creating jobs and the economy is sluggish for the middle class, the government is the employer of last resort. It is THE JOB of government to correct the situation when it is stuck.

I don't want it because I can get a much greater return on it than social security is going to give me (if they give me anything at all).

Then since you "know" that, you must have plugged all your annual S.S. contributions, available on your annual statement, into a spreadsheet and calculated the IRR based on your expected benefit, also available in your annual statement. I did.

If you want it - great, keep it. I don't want it. Let me opt out. People would be dramatically better off if the money was deducted and put in a private account than the current system.

Like I said, you know nothing about financial planning. . . diversification, the importance of having different sources of different types for retirement income, etc. And you don't recognize the potential problems with private accounts (another whole discussion for another thread). Hence you aren't qualified to make a decision on the value of S.S.

Government doesn't have to pay the wage - they just mandate that they must be higher. And you openly admit that inflation adjusted minimum wage would be in the ballpark of $10-11.

Yup.

That is what...40-50% lower than what fast food workers think their unskilled labor is worth?

Irrelevant to the discussion.

Is there any statistical data on this claim?

Probably, but it's common sense and everyone's experience that a new hire gets raises as he stays with the job. You doubt it?

Not really - you just threw it out there with nothing to substantiate it.

You question whether some are in situations where they cannot get additional training to improve their earning potential??? Now you're trolling.

I want the market to set wages....

Prove that IN ACTUAL PRACTICE the market sets wages consistent with inflation. Sure, the market, left to itself, will set wages . . . . lower and lower and lower and lower. Why do you think so many companies moved to cheap labor countries? They wanted to AVOID the U.S. requirement that wages be at least a set minimum. And I guess lower wages is what you want to see. Wouldn't that do a nice job on this country!

Inflation is not an artificial expense...but inflation is low, and according to the BLS again (reported on by the WSJ): "Spending by households on many of modern life's "basics"—food at home, automobiles, clothing and footwear, household furnishings and equipment, and housing and utilities—fell from 53% of disposable income in 1950 to 44% in 1970 to 32% today.

Sure. Increasing poverty is a good way of forcing people to cut back. And the middle class is shrinking as poverty has increased.

Even though the inflation-adjusted hourly wage hasn't changed much in 50 years, it is unlikely that an average American would trade his wages and benefits in 2013—along with access to the most affordable food, appliances, clothing and cars in history, plus today's cornucopia of modern electronic goods—for the same real wages but with much lower fringe benefits in the 1950s or 1970s, along with those era's higher prices, more limited selection, and inferior products.

Are there any statistical data on this claim?



Despite assertions by progressives who complain about stagnant wages, inequality and the (always) disappearing middle class, middle-class Americans have more buying power than ever before. They live longer lives and have much greater access to the services and consumer products bought by billionaires."[/QUOTE]
"Ever before"? Not true. And poverty skyrocketed under our last republican president.
http://www.statista.com/statistics/200463/us-poverty-rate-since-1990/