America -Olong the way to Socialism .
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago
0Take a look at the following , NASA , the military industrial complex ,the elementary education system , the criminal justice system including all police and law enforcements and judges local state and federal , all of municipal government including state employees , town and city employees , highway depts. fire fighting departments , the ivy leagues ,the entire health care system , the auto industry ,all forms of mass transportation , each and every one of these strongly supported by organized labor which in turn is the first entity supported by the federal , state and local governments ! And ---- All of them like a basket full of new born chicks , beaks sticking out of the basket crying for the next handout and it's becoming the new norm !
All of these becoming well established "stimulus " supported unions - the first signs of our nation morphing into Socialism ?Nothing in there to suggest that your country is morphing into socialism, nothing at all.
So, what's your solution, Ahorseback, do we regress back to days of Dickens' novel, with people begging in the streets? You 19th century loving people may want to go back to the days of squalor and Tenement housing, even Teddy Roosevelt knew that was unsustainable BS over a century ago. What is it that you people really want?
Okay, do you really expect to get away with this "you people" critique?
Although I agree whole heartedly with your comment - I can't let you slide on this "you people" stuff - even though you are right. It is "you people" (in this instance right-wingers), that are drowning out the message of "us people" that "you people" are wrong and don;'t represent the voice of "us people."
ps. I am behind you 100%. "You people" is a logical, easily understood, and very understandable description of a group of peolple - but "you people" is so politically incorrect that I just could not let you sacrifice yourself on the alter of reality without at least a caution.
GAGA, sometimes it is not 'purple' just blue and red. Don't want to strike a nerve, while we speak of purple there are plenty of azure blue and crimson red types throughout the spectrum. "You people" defines them, and they are not me. No modern society can operate without many of elements that the right wing radicals call socialist. I fear economic feudalism much more than I do socialism. I would just like Ahorseback to present a solution to what he perceives as a problem..... I am glad that as a 'purple' you agree with the substance of my point.
Many, especially Americans, do not seem to understand socialism. How can they be either for or against something they don't understand?
Hi, John, I remember the classic definition of socialism from Junior High School as the state ownership of the means of production in a society as opposed to capitalism and private property. Under that definition America, is not even close to being considered socialist. I do not advocate socialism, as a progressive, I am capitalist and interested only in checking its excesses that make it less likely to survive over the long term.
Even that definition of socialism only touches at the edges, a bit like saying that the definition of capitalism is the ownership of all businesses by corporate giants.
Capitalism is focused on private property and ownership by individuals regardless of whether it is proprietorship, partnership or corporation, big or small. What are your thoughts on it?
That would be great! Unfortunately it is no longer (if it ever was) like that.
Even small businesses are essentially owned by larger ones, usually banks, sometimes suppliers or franchisees, but usually the "owner" is little more than a figurehead at the beck and call of others.I have been around to remember when it was more like that than not, things have become complicated. The idea of preserving capitalism and containing its excesses includes supporting a more competitive economic environment rather than less of one. Breaking down 'trusts' and collusion/monopolistic behavior within industries has been a function of government before all the deregulation fervor.
The point you make is another excess that needs to be regulated, as we heading for scenario where there is no longer any real choice. The fact is that the plutocrats with their willing lapdogs, the politicians have used their influence to skew things to their advantage, that means having and taking it all. There is a principle, not everything can be for sale, another of Capitalism's excesses.But what is the solution? Corporate capitalists have taken over our governments and they will not give up power easily as can be seen in both our countries.
There is little difference between the major parties, both seem to have the same goals, witness the supposedly left wing labour party in the UK wanting to sell off Royal Mail and starting the privatisation of the NHS, both for the benefit not of the people who use the services but for corporate gain.
Do you know that the privatised railways in the UK are again largely owned by government? Unfortunately not the UK government but the governments of France, Germany and Belgium?The problem is with us. You witness the animosity and belligerence on this very forum all the time. We have to start relating to each other on the issues and less on the character of what the ideology we conceive them to be. Just because some feel that there should be more accountability with regards to social programs does not mean that they believe we should give away the farm. And the inverse of that does not mean that we should exclude any help to those who are needy and truly deserving. The "compromise" has to be a melding of the minds and not ideology.
The politicians are addicted to the money and we have decided this is the way to go by not changing the election process. Us House incumbents need to start raising $10,000 a week to mount a re election campaign. If they need more, more time must be spent. What about the excess? What do you think that buys over the election? Money is the problem and unless we alleviate it nothing will change.
Term limits, publicly financed campaigns and lobby reform is the only answer.We had something like this in the middle of the 20th century in the UK. Although we had two parties with opposing ideologies they worked together for the greater good of the people that they represented. This saw growth, full employment and a great reduction in poverty. it was called consensus.
Then we got greedy and selfish!
Short of revolution, John, as rhamson, says" we have found the enemy and it is us". I know here in the states, both major political parties are involved in current economic crisis, it is just in my humble opinion one party is more in a hurry to get to the plutocratic ideal than the other. Greed and selfishness know no bounds, and until we get the big money influence peddlers out of the picture, we are never going to get our representatives to focus on the peoples' business. The conservatives have been the most resistant to needed campaign finance reform and reining in the big dollar dangle influence peddling.
Capitalism is infectious, but greed and avarice even more so. These are questions of global import. Those in the middle class that buttress our economic system are now being consigned to oblivion. Welcome to planet earth, the people have allowed themselves to be placated and distracted from the issues that will determine their very survival in the near future. I am with RH in his call for term limits, needed to break up these empires that have replaced the idea of public service.
Start here: They are selling you out piece by piece!But how would you propose we go about getting rid of the big money influence pedallers?
We've all got too much to lose (we think) by taking to the streets and physically evicting them.The key in turning this around is getting rid of the me and replacing it with we. Party stooges cannot think beyond their party propaganda and for the rest social issues overshadow where the focus should be. How often do I hear about why and where a gay couple gets married while thousands go homeless without a hitch In their arguing. The we should be discussed and less of the me.
Well, first of all we have the change the idea that a 'corporation' is a person when it comes to the political process. A start would be to vote out the rightwing politicians that talk about free markets but line their pockets instead. Too many people in this country believe that showing opportunity on Thurston Howell III is going to translate to economic growth for the vast majority of the rest of us. That involves a process of education, but again that is my point of view. But practically, campaign finance reform needs to be taken seriously, it is up to the people and the voters
Can we toss out the leftwing politicians that talk about what we "owe" people as they intentionally enslave them to the government in order to buy their votes?
Of course right wing politicians have never ever done anything to buy votes, never at all.
But it's much easier for Americans to talk about the evil influence of left wing politicians and how things would be better if socialism were eradicated than to address the real problems and the causes of them.
"No modern society can operate without many of elements that the right wing radicals call socialist. "
Good point, and I think it is this point that many who criticize government actions and programs, (Dem and Repub governments), do not account for.
I am frequently "one of them," joining in their criticisms of handouts, subsidies, financial guarantees, bailouts, "stimulus" monies, and many other actions that either subvert or short-circuit our economic and social systems. But it is not an "all or nothing" mindset. As your point makes... times change, and societies evolve. Solutions have to change and evolve with them.
GAWe can all question the appropriateness of policies in your last paragraph, I am talking about 'extremists from either side of the pole, socialism on one side and capitalism unregulated and unrestrained on the other. After following you for a while, I can see that you are still one of us....
Ahorse
I would have to disagree. The first sign was probably the Federal Reserve. What you expressed here are the foundations being laid. The rest of the building will morph quickly into something akin to a totalitarian state. Something along the lines of Marxism.I think you can make a credible argument for the Federal Reserve as the first step in a devolution of Congressional/Presidential authority to a central directorate and the imposition of that same directorate on the market. I also think much of what we see today was hinted at a hundred years ago by America's premier racist President, Woodrow Wilson, in an essay on the Administrative State.
http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/fir … nistration
Although your perspective is clear, your grab bag of inclusions is far from indicative of a purposeful statement.
For instance, your mention of the M/I complex, (military industrial), education system, and unions, is clearly an indicator of your mindset, but I am unsure why you included NASA,
In rereading your post I am leaning to the assumption that your point has something to do with the power of unions and the trough of government handouts - am I wrong?
It appears you have a point to make about government largess and handouts to politically potent constituencies, a point I would gladly join with you if I were sure that was your intent.
But your inclusion of NASA and apparent directives concerning "elementary" education confuses me.
By the way, your steps leading to the declaration that these examples are the indicators that illustrate your point of a drive to socialism are not only contradictory , they are also a bunch of hooey. Want to try again?
GA
Ha! I have done that so many times that I welcome your boo-boo - as it makes me feel like less of an idiot.
GA
People gladly give government every form of identification for a check, but refuse to prove who they are, and assure a fair and accurate vote. Yes, there is a problem.
If you have a problem showing identification to vote, show me what part of government will give you a check without identification and a social security number.- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
GA , NASA , is probably the biggest "welfare " system in our tax economy right now ! If not right now then always , have you ever looked at the dollar and cents allowed them ? And these $ allocations are far reaching into all of our industrial complex , from wiring manufacturers to plastic to education , Not to include NASA in the classification of "stimulus " type spending would be a shame !
Ah, you're talking about welfare payments paid to big business!
I'm right behind you on this one (sorry).
Wilderness you said:
Can we toss out the leftwing politicians that talk about what we "owe" people as they intentionally enslave them to the government in order to buy their votes?
I say that I want to find out why the Government is now our adversary instead of an extension of US, the will of the voters, and which direction, really, is the cause. What is this enslave to the Government? The existence and need of Public servants are being attacked by the right. When poor people vote with any degree of determination, it means that they are being bought, is it not that Romney nonsense of the 'makers and takers'? Sorry to be candid about my distrust of the conservative's philosophy and I apologize for my frankness.
John says,
But it's much easier for Americans to talk about the evil influence of left wing politicians and how things would be better if socialism were eradicated than to address the real problems and the causes of them.
I say, it is just more bait and switch. There have been people that scream Marxism/socialism at every occasion Mr. Obama happens to scratch his nose. These people on the extremes seem more interested in racism and intolerance. The goober peas crowd are among the people who would not know what socialism really was if it bit them in the rump. But, they can parrot Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck flawlessly. How people allow themselves to be so easily deceived in the 'bait and switch" is the question of the decade.But very effective bait and switch witnessed by the number of folk who insist that their vision is the only one..
Take Wilderness who however often I tell him that I do not see large centralised government as any part of socialism insists that I do. (Though I suspect more than a trace of a wind up it all his comments)
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
Every economy needs social welfare programs and we have always had ours ! Always . But there is a learning curve associated with those who are generationally raised and maintained in that environment ! They expect more .Period ! We see this every day . All of our systems were meant for temporary relief , not as a career income . Even "minimum wage " was meant as a standard for lower income protection . Not to be a wage that begins at the top for instance - a burger business' income can't justify
$ 14.00 per hour , so it shouldn't be forced to pay that . Hey . How about a 35 dollar hamburger ......anybody ?So you reckon by paying the man who makes the burger $14 an hour his production would drop to around one burger an hour!
Untrue. Unless it is a VERY special place, his production will drop to zero...just about the time the joint closes because it can't compete.
"All of which means that the real change in the cost of a Big Mac, or the dollar menu, if McDonald’s workers were paid $15 an hour is: nothing. For production costs simply do not determine the prices that can be achieved in a competitive market."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall … r-nothing/
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
One thing about a working capitalistic society , The math has to work ! But then our culture is really flunking in math tests .
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
The man who makes the fast food burger was making 14 dollars an hour yesterday . John , and he wants sixteen today ! The burger now costs $ 38.00 with fries ! Nobody goes to "Burger-Donalds" anymore . they stay home and make their own for $ 3.00. NOW , the guy making $ 16.00 an hour gets Laid off from his job and goes on public assistance and stays home because no one wants a highly paid burger cooker . This is what's happening in America .
Ridiculous and very muck in keeping with the conservative mumbo jumbo we continually hear. The simple facts are that when the minimum wage goes up so does the economy. It is much like the stock market as more money is poured into the market the market gains are realized by it. If you pay somebody less than minimum wage do you think the price will go down or if it does change what makes you think the guy flipping those burgers will be able to afford the meal any better? Henry Ford discovered this at the beginning of the twentieth century when his workers could not afford to buy the product they were making. He went against all the conventional wisdom of the day and paid them $5.00 a day. There is no silver bullet and hard work is not the answer to many who are struggling as it is. The cycle is where money is earned a small amount is saved, a portion is spent on expenses and the extra is spent on whatever the person wants. Unfortunately the current state is that many are living only to maintain. Nothing extra. Where is the profits from these mega rich and mega corporations going? Not back into the economy as the 1% is pocketing the rest.
https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/photos … 90/?type=1
Henry Ford's Labor philosophy
The five-dollar workday
Time Magazine, January 14, 1935.
Ford was a pioneer of "welfare capitalism", designed to improve the lot of his workers and especially to reduce the heavy turnover that had many departments hiring 300 men per year to fill 100 slots. Efficiency meant hiring and keeping the best workers.
Ford astonished the world in 1914 by offering a $5 per day wage ($120 today), which more than doubled the rate of most of his workers. A Cleveland, Ohio newspaper editorialized that the announcement "shot like a blinding rocket through the dark clouds of the present industrial depression." The move proved extremely profitable; instead of constant turnover of employees, the best mechanics in Detroit flocked to Ford, bringing their human capital and expertise, raising productivity, and lowering training costs. Ford announced his $5-per-day program on January 5, 1914, raising the minimum daily pay from $2.34 to $5 for qualifying workers. It also set a new, reduced workweek, although the details vary in different accounts. Ford and Crowther in 1922 described it as six 8-hour days, giving a 48-hour week, while in 1926 they described it as five 8-hour days, giving a 40-hour week. (Apparently the program started with Saturday being a workday and sometime later it was changed to a day off.)
Detroit was already a high-wage city, but competitors were forced to raise wages or lose their best workers. Ford's policy proved, however, that paying people more would enable Ford workers to afford the cars they were producing and be good for the economy. Ford explained the policy as profit-sharing rather than wages. It may have been Couzens who convinced Ford to adopt the $5-day.
The profit-sharing was offered to employees who had worked at the company for six months or more, and, importantly, conducted their lives in a manner of which Ford's "Social Department" approved. They frowned on heavy drinking, gambling, and (what today are called) deadbeat dads. The Social Department used 50 investigators, plus support staff, to maintain employee standards; a large percentage of workers were able to qualify for this "profit-sharing."
Ford's incursion into his employees' private lives was highly controversial, and he soon backed off from the most intrusive aspects. By the time he wrote his 1922 memoir, he spoke of the Social Department and of the private conditions for profit-sharing in the past tense, and admitted that "paternalism has no place in industry. Welfare work that consists in prying into employees' private concerns is out of date. Men need counsel and men need help, often special help; and all this ought to be rendered for decency's sake. But the broad workable plan of investment and participation will do more to solidify industry and strengthen organization than will any social work on the outside. Without changing the principle we have changed the method of payment"
Wikipedia - source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_FordBravo, RH, The conservatives always complain about the minimum wage as a concept, yet research show that that MOST of the world's nations have this provision in some form or another. Is there something they know that we don't? It is know every where that the money accumulated at the top as compared to working people at a firm has increased at exponential levels. This disparity cannot just be written off to 'hard work' and such. Perhaps the official level of poverty, just under $12,000.00 per year should be the guide as to a rational floor regarding minimum wage. With the current standard at $7.35/hour, that is $15,288 which is ok as long as you are supporting yourself, add a dependent or two and if there are minors, that person would need to work a couple of jobs such as this a day. I know many that work back to back shifts just to try to keep up. I don't care what anybody says a minimum wage of $5.15 as far back as 1997 and $7.35/hour 17 years later basically indicates that someone has lost a great deal of buying power over this time. Who decides what is 'enough', it is many times more difficult for those on the low wage end of the scale to 'make it' than it was a generation ago. So who got all this wealth? You know who.... I was a substitute teacher in Southern California in 1981 and was getting $10.00/hour for 6 hours of work, over 30 years later people can't seem to get this as a floor when considering how much everything has gone up since then.
I guess the issue is what is enough, I don't trust the sweat shop operators to make that determination, based on market forces, which usually means exploitation of labor, the preponderance of modern economies across the world recognizes this."Who decides what is 'enough'"
This really is a problem. Should that be a committee on capital hill without even a notion as to the value of the work to be done in the real world? Or should it be local conditions, a part of which is competition?
And "enough" for whom? The single person just starting their working career, which is what the minimum wage is intended for? Or the single earner in a family of 6, including a disabled parent, who has been in the market for years and SHOULD have some real skills to sell? One can live on minimum wage, one can't even come close to it at triple that. So what is "enough", and for whom does it apply?Wilderness, when I look at the minimum wage standard as a floor to protect workers, I see that since 1981 compared with today the minimum wage worker has lost about 25% of his or her buying power. I found this from BLS comparisons of standard of living from about 1980 to today $3.35/hour to $7.35 today. To be equivalent to what that floor represented in 1980, a minimum wage of about $9.60/hour is warranted. The solution is to properly maintain the floor and otherwise let the market determine the worth and value of employees beyond adherence to minimum wage requirements.
None of which addresses the question of who determines what the floor is or should be. You reference a floor that was set far to high, for instance, and should never have been set in the first place, and then complain that it isn't maintained.
Who should set the minimum, and what reasoning should be used? (And just saying it went down doesn't answer the question).Why don't you tell us who you think should set the minimum and why.
I already have, John, over and over. The market and the freely entered into contract between seller and buyer sets it. Whereupon you ask who the "market" is.
Sorry, John, but if you have no idea what the market place is I can't help you. Go find a (very) basic economics text.
In other words, you aren't really sure but it's a good sound bite that counters any argument.
I'm asking you how the "market place" fits every situation. How the market place fits situations where no trading is done, where man is told what he can have.That would be called slavery (unless you refer to specific items such as cocaine or handguns). It is illegal in the US, where no man can be told where to work. Even the chain gang in jail is optional, I understand.
I'd love to live in your Utopia. Actually, I bet you would too.
Well, I only have direct experience with myself and my wife, but if anyone ever told ME I had to work at their business all they'd get is the finger. I will make that choice, thank you very much!
Hello, John. Great to have the opportunity to share a few thoughts with you!
I would like, if I may, to offer an explanation on how the marketplace determines a person's wage for either an existing worker or a new hire. The process fits every situation and it functions quite well in all free markets where the worker is free to leave or refuse a job and the boss can draw from an outside pool of qualified labor.
The process determines the wage for a particular skill set by matching supply and demand, i.e. by arriving at an equation in which employer and worker preferences are equal.
There is no economic incentive for the boss to pay a laborer an amount greater than he would have to pay to locate and hire another equally satisfactory worker. He simply looks at other companies to determine what they are paying for similar labor talent under comparable circumstances. This quickly establishes an acceptable yet flexible preferred pay range for the boss.
Looking at the labor side of the wage equation, a worker knows how much she would get from other potential bosses and she has no incentive to accept a wage that is less than what is available from comparable bosses. This quickly establishes an acceptable yet flexible preferred pay range for the worker.
While each party has a preferred pay range in mind, no deal is possible until both ranges overlap. When both the boss and the worker want to make a deal, each is inclined to tweak his/her acceptable pay range until both are about equal. The boss might want to pay a little more and the worker might be ready to accept a little less in order to satisfy each one's individual goals.
The boss, for example, may need workers willing to commit themselves to 24/7 availability, or he may have a need for bilingual skills. On the other hand, the particular working conditions, flexible hours or the cost of transportation may sway the worker. Ultimately, as these two amounts get closer to each other, the potential for a wage agreement increases.
Notice that neither party exerts very much influence on the other as these two independent marketplace dynamics arrive at equilibrium. A "living wage" is never discussed and a legislated minimum wage serves only to impose a fixed limit at the low end of the employer's preferred wage range.
The process is rather simple and reliable. In practice in a truly free marketplace, the wage is determined dynamically so both labor and management gets what they want.
I hope this adds to the dialog, John.
John knows all this quite well. The problem lies within your statement that " ...functions quite well in all free markets where the worker is free to leave or refuse a job", for John consistently submits that workers are slaves, NOT free to leave or refuse. They are FORCED to work where they are told, and at wages they are told to accept, without recourse in any manner.
Hello Quilligrapher, I hope you are well too.
I am honoured when you pause to give one of your well thought out replies to my thoughts. I wish I had the thing to be able to post like you.
Whilst I can't argue with the theory that you describe, the reality is much different.
When there is equilibrium, one man, one job then both parties can sit down and reach a mutually agreeable figure but as soon as this ceases to be, when there is one employer and a number of suitably qualified prospective employees then all balance is gone.
Then the job goes to the one willing to work for the lowest remuneration.
This isn't theory Quilligrapher, this is how it really works, rather than a market place, employment has become a Dutch auction with the prize going to the lowest bidder.
As in any other market place, all things being equal, the man with the cheapest onions sells the most.
Stay well and do keep contributing, even when I don't agree with you I value your input.Do you also find that when there is a surplus of jobs, that the worker will pick the one with the best package for him (usually the highest wage?). It's called "competition" and is what makes the capitalist system work - the system that has the highest productivity man has ever seen, and the highest standard of living to go with it.
When last was there a surplus of jobs?
Again, in that situation the market is unbalanced, one side has more power than the other.
It can only work anything like properly if both sides are equal.I'd say around 2000, maybe 2006, had a surplus of jobs. I've seen it swing both ways several times in my working career - haven't you?
But aren't you going to complain when workers are able to take already minimal profits from business owners simply because there is a surplus of jobs? You certainly complain when the shoe is on the other foot...
It doesn't seem possible to maintain equality as some of the workforce is always out (accident, illness, sabbatical, whatever) and jobs come and go as business grows and crumbles.Actually, sustained full employment was last recorded in the 1970s in both our countries. Some sectors have seen full employment since then but as far as the general working population is concerned it really was that long ago.
Businesses are recording record profits so my heart doesn't bleed too much for those only making minimal profits, any way doesn't the free market say that these should go to the wall rather than being propped up by their employees?Overall business profit is up, so you don't care about the ones in trouble. Isn't this what you always accuse me of? That the rich are fine so don't worry about the poor? It really IS people that are being hurt, you know - business owners that are struggling to feed their families and having a tough time of it.
So because business owners are struggling to feed their families their workers should too, even when the business turns around and the owner is well off again!
Ah. I see. You think it good for business owners to go hungry and lose their business because you know that they will recover and go on to be rich.
And you were telling me how capitalism was the very best system and made everybody well off!
If a business owner is protected from the fluctuations of the sacred market place why shouldn't his employees be afforded the same protection?Capitalism is without a doubt the best system for a nation. It does not provide protection for every individual and I never said it did.
Explain to the owner of a failed business how it is protected. If you try to do that, you may find the error in your statement. You might consider explaining to the ex-employee of a failed business the same thing - that business is protected from harm when times are bad. At least that ex-employee can draw unemployment; business owners do not have even that in the US.But you are saying that the owner of a business should be protected by his work force. Why, when the business owner shows no support for his work force.
The business owner DOES show support for his/her workforce. He/she pays the workers and often pays for healthcare. Owning and running a business involves lots of expenditure, Mr. Holden. Business is about the bottom line-making profits. Employees are there to be profitable for the corporation, no doubt about it. The corporate world isn't Candyland, Mr. Holden where the boss mollycoddle the employee. No, my bad(sarcastic barb), that is what much of civil service a/k/a Candyland does to its employees, holding on to incompetent employees who should have been fired LONG AGO. However, I am talking about private industry where the main concern is profits.
Exactly, the main concern is profits, profits, not people.
But is the concern with public prisons the person inside? It doesn't seem so here; as much as we like to throw around the word "rehabilitate" it is punishment, not teaching a prisoner to live in society, that is done. Sad, but that's the way it is, and that most go right back in bears that out.
I think you've got two separate topics melded here!
It is two problems, alright, but also necessarily welded together. Will a private company do better than the government in rehabilitation? I doubt it, but don't know, although I'm sure they could.
I suspect that a private company would be too interested in profits to care much about rehabilitation, in fact they would welcome recidivists!
I don't see business as THAT evil, though I suspect rehab would not be particularly high on their list of priorities. Certainly under profit.
Rehab should not be a consideration at all. Rehab is a "feel good" PC concept. A person is in prison because they decide that the rules of society do not matter to them.
I say this for one reason - personal experience. Second, (and third and fourth), chances are offered to ALMOST EVERY incarcerated person - before incarceration!
Want to get first-hand perspective? Visit your local Circuit or District courts for a day. Almost every defendant, (law breaker), is offered probation, rehab, counseling, etc.- before actual incarceration.
I will venture to say that EVERY incarcerated person, (short of violent crimes like murder or armed assault), is offered "rehabilitation" options before actual incarceration occurs.
Incarceration is a last resort of the courts. If a person is sentenced to jail, it is almost certainly because all efforts to give them another chance gave failed.
So prison is a punishment - not an obligation to "fix" a troubled person.
GA
[edit] Oops, it occurs to me that a little clarification might be illuminating. When I say "personal experience", and "first-hand," I do not mean I am speaking as an incarcerated person. I do volunteer work as an "addiction" counselor. I spend a lot of time in court rooms relative to my clients/sponserees needs.l I see what the courts do daily - and it is not to arbitrarily and capriciously put people in jail!
You assume that profit is the only reason people open a business. You assume that business owners make a killing. Many struggle. Should I receive financial reward if I put a second mortgage on my home, work 60 hours a week, and if I assume all the potential risk? If so, should I earn more than one of my employees who assumes no financial risk and works far fewer hours a week?
Some open businesses, so they can be their own boss. Some open businesses, because they want to love their work. Either way, people who assume risk should receive reward. Successful business owners, in my experience, work insanely long hours until their business becomes successful. They deserve financial reward.OK, let me use a response already applied to a Wilderness post - Amen Brother!
You are spot on. And I would suggest that the folks that would argue with your point are only basing their objections on .3%, (or less), Of US businesses. Big Business is a popular villain, but the critics seldom qualify their condemnations.
GANo I don't assume that profit is the only reason that people start a business, those who have other reasons are more likely to pay fairly. Neither do I assume that all business owners make a killing.
Many employees work 60 hours a week because they need to protect their mortgages as well and risk their whole way of life if the company fails.
I contend that many business owners do not spend more hours at work than their employees and do not take greater risks and this is not conjecture, it is from personal experience.That's true, but it's also true that any business owners work far harder than their employees just to stay in business. When these people work that hard and assume the financial risk, they deserve to make a lot more than their employees. This is from my personal experience.
As you know, by the way, I am not a business owner.I know that many business owners do not work harder than their employees and do not take the financial risks that their employees take. This is my personal experience.
Just can't admit that some employers work harder?
Never thought I'd have to educate somebody who called themselves anything to do with education!
Many don't is not everybody, in fact you could say that if many don't, many do. Which ever way you look at it, it does mean that some work harder. End of lesson.Thank you for the valuable education. It was so enlightening.
Rhetoric.
Education Answer, we all know that business owners work harder than the employees. We also know that many business owners take great financial risks regarding their companies, businesses, and/or corporations. Many business owners work 50-60 hours a week to maintain and advance their businesses. They do not work a mere 9-5 like their employees, especially in private industry. To many business owners, taking vacations is a foreign concepts-their main concern is organizing and strategizing as to how to maintain their businesses.
"We" doesn't seem to include John. He's infatuated with sticking it to the abusive, slave-driving business owners who do nothing but sit back and collect fat-cat checks while their employees work in sweat shops. This seems to be his message MOST of the time.
Howdy EA. I hope you have been doing well.
I thought I might post another perspective to add to your rather accurate description of some business owners. I sincerely believe it is quite appropriate to “stick it” to abusive, slave-driving business owners who prosper while their employees work in sweatshops. You characterize John’s feelings as an infatuation? I would say “sticking it” to such owners should be more than an infatuation. It should be a duty.
Here are just a few examples of business owners “who do nothing but sit back and collect fat-cat checks while their employees work in sweat shops.”
The world knows that Nike footwear is made with generous amounts of physical and verbal abuse. “ Dozens of interviews by The Associated Press, and a document released by Nike, show the company has a long way to go to meet the standards it set for itself a decade ago to end its reliance on sweatshop labour.”{1}
Nike’s profit for the year that ended August, 2014, is $13.04 billion but these business owners, who some believe work longer and harder than their employees, can not manage to wean their company from a dependence on child labor either. {2}
Foxconn, Apple’s iPhone supplier in China, could afford to install nets outside of the windows of their dormitories. Last year, their profits grew by 13 percent to reach roughly $3.5 billion. Read the CBS News report “What happened after the Foxconn suicides” to learn why thousands of assemblers had to work 12 hours per days and sleep in dormitories just to keep their jobs. “Technicians from the engineering department time every task and, if workers can meet the quotas, the targets are increased. Anyone unable to meet their hourly quota is not allowed to rest. Conversation in the workshop was forbidden.”{3}
Here in the USA, the typical American business owner engaged in farming enjoys an industry in which there is no minimum age for children working on small farms. Youngsters are allow to toil unlimited hours outside of school for $4.25 per hour. Sadly, twenty percent of all farm fatalities are children. Figures from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that agriculture is responsible for the most deaths among workers aged 17 and under. Meanwhile, big cats like the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, Hanes, Hershey's Chocolate, Phillip Morris, and Victoria's Secret have all been exposed for their use of child labor. {4}
Another source reveals that Forever 21, Aeropostale, Toys ‘R’ Us, Urban Outfitters and KYE, a Microsoft vendor in China, can also be added to this list of business owners who profit handsomely while abusing their employees. {5}
So, if one bothers to examine the public record, it becomes rather clear that many business owners, both large and small, have unsavory reputations that date back even further than the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. Maybe we should give John credit for having knowledge about some aspects of the business world that some of us would like to ignore.
It is nice to chat with you again, EA. I always learn something from your frequent posts.
{1}
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … nesia.html
{2} http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Nike_(NKE)/Data/Gross_Profit
{3} http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-happen … -suicides/
{4} http://www.medicaldaily.com/child-labor … bor-246760
{5} http://www.businesspundit.com/5-giant-c … ?img=42007Quilligrapher,
I thank you from the bottom of my heart.
I fear that your explanation will be totally ignored by the sycophants.Quilligrapher and John,
What an evasive twisting of what I said! John's stereotyping of business owners needed help, so John appreciates the assistance.
Feel free to stick it to those abusive, slave-driving business owners; lay off of the millions who work just as hard or harder than their employees, the ones who treat their employees with respect. My point, one I thought was clear, was that John almost always lumps all business owners into one category, evil, sweat-shop owners.
John, are you calling me a "psycophant," or are you calling other people at HubPages this? How civilized of you. One disagrees with you, and this is your childish response? Quillagrapher might be willing to defend your misguided, extreme stance, but he would never be this crass.Education Answer almost always lumps all business owners into one category, paragons of virtue.
I had never even heard the word "psycophant" before you used it in this post. I didn't even know what it meant and had to look it up.
I would never, ever, even suggest that somebody was mentally ill.
I think that you owe me an apology for misrepresenting me, however I do not expect you to be big enough to do so.
Oh, and by the way, a word ending 's is a plural and refers to more than one.John, this is way beyond ludicrous. Page up 7 posts, and see your own post. Come on! What's the excuse, you said sycophant not psychophant?
Is it revisionist history or a twisting of reality? Be honest. You called me a name, and I owe you an apology? Good luck with that!
The truth is here for all to see. If you don't want to page up, I can quote you, word-for-word.
YOU SAID:
Quilligrapher,
I thank you from the bottom of my heart.
I fear that your explanation will be totally ignored by the sycophants.
By the way, a sycophant is a person who acts obsequiously toward someone important in order to gain advantage. So you think you are important while others or I am not? You'll have a long wait on that apology.
Are you big enough to apologize: you, John, are the one who calls others names and the person who owes an apology.
Are you big enough to admit obvious fault and apologize? We'll see.Yes, I said sycophant, not psychophant, different meanings.
"Psychophant. One who attempts to garner favour by flattering influential people, but does so to a psychotic, often violent degree."
I do know what sycophant means, unlike you I'm not in the habit of using words that I don't know the meaning of. I also know what "sycophant's" means.
As I thought, not big enough to own your own mistake.I'm happy to own my mistake. I put the wrong word. Now, are you big enough to admit that calling me a name was wrong? I'm not holding my breath.
John, I'm not going to respond the way I would like to, because I would violate the terms of participation here at HubPages and my own values. Rest assured, I have plenty of words I fully understand that I would like to use right now.
You have a wonderful day.See, that was easy and painless. Thank you.
Now please show me where I called you a name?
Your main focus seems to be to stick it to business owners. They deserve to suffer, because they own a business?
No, not at all but the main focus on here seems to be to stick it to the workers who deserve to suffer because they don't own a business.
I have yet to hear you, on any forum, talk about helping business owners. It seems that you stereotype them all as greedy, self-serving people who take advantage of their employees.
Well why should I? There are more than enough people on these forums talking about helping business owners.
And no, I don't stereotype them all as greedy self serving people, only the ones that are greedy and self serving.
Hello again, John. Your words are too kind and too generous. I feel honored as well.
“Whilst I can't argue with the theory that you describe, the reality is much different,” seems to be your main point.
I do not challenge how you perceive reality, John, because your perception is, by definition, your reality. However, to suggest that generally accepted theories under both socialism and capitalism simply vaporize when they are put into practice defies intellectual reasoning. While the variables are sometimes easier to control in the laboratory, the applicable forces and the resulting dynamics are all still present in the field. If that were not the case, they would not qualify as generally accepted theories at all.
It is important to clarify one point in particular. You may have misunderstood my use of “equilibrium.” I do use the term to represent an equal number of jobs and workers. Such equilibrium would be a contrivance that is rarely, if ever, found in reality. I used equilibrium to represent the convergence of what I called the two “acceptable yet flexible preferred pay ranges” in the minds of hirers and workers. One should not for one moment entertain the notion that the two ranges always default to opposite extremes because this is untrue. Furthermore, no hire will even occur if the two ranges do not overlap (as in converge) to some extent. Nor, is it true to assume that “the job goes to the one willing to work for the lowest remuneration” even when a large labor pool is competing for a smaller number of jobs. Remember the tweaking of both ranges as the two parties adjust them to satisfy their individual goals. This happens in real life even if it goes unnoticed.
Consider, as well, a reversed labor market condition, i.e. a relatively small labor pool trying to satisfy a larger demand for workers. In this scenario, the employer is obliged by the dynamics of free market forces to increase the high end of his preferred wage range or else all of the available labor will take jobs with other companies.
May I take a tad more of your time to thank you for your attention, John. I hope I have explained the “who,” “what,” and “how” a truly free marketplace determines a person’s wage. I did not mean to imply the markets here, in the UK, or elsewhere in the world are truly free. However, the profit motive in a free enterprise system can produce positive independent forces and it can produce negative abuses as well. After all, John, Capitalism, just like Socialism, is an economic system and not a moral compass.I'm sorry Quilligrapher but this seems to imply that those on a low income, often having to work two jobs to survive somehow agree to their low pay!
I'm sure that you can't mean this but it is an inescapable conclusion.Well, here I am again, John. I shall make one more attempt to lift the fog but after that, you are on your own. As I said before, wage dynamics apply in all truly free markets and they do not need to be limited to low paying jobs.
Yes, my friend, I do mean that your hypothetical low-income earners working two jobs to survive do indeed agree to work for their low pay! Furthermore, they do so rationally and logically although not always consciously. Here is why:
The workers who do not agree, or who think they should be paid more, need to search for, find, and take jobs with other employers who are willing to pay them what they believe they should earn for their skills. It is that simple.
However, you might say, if they can not find an employer willing to pay the wages that they believe they should earn, what happens then? This is where “acceptable yet flexible preferred pay ranges” come in to play! Your workers now realize that…
1) they are already being paid the highest wages for their skills that any potential employer is willing to pay them,
2) they have to reduce their own “acceptable yet flexible preferred pay ranges” downward to remain competitive in the job market they have chosen, and then
3) they “agree” to themselves that it is best to stay with their current jobs because they are already being paid the highest wages they are able to find under the existing free market circumstances.
Please let me know if in your view I missed some other options that may be available to your low paid workers. My role here is to explain how wages are determined in a marketplace when and if it is truly free and, certainly, not to convince you to renounce socialism.
I hope you enjoy your day, John, in addition to finding opportunities to have loads of fun over the weekend.Quilligrapher, with respect, I think you are using "agree" in a different way to me. You are using it in the way that says that if somebody holds a gun to my head and demands my wallet, I agree to give it to them!
Your thesis assumes full employment which, with graduates flipping burgers for the minimum wage, we patently do not have.
I expect that I shall have a quiet weekend with no big excitements. How times change!
You have a good weekend too.
"As in any other market place, all things being equal, the man with the cheapest onions sells the most."
At face value this statement describes capitalism at it's basic core. But unfortunately it does not describe the marketplace, consumers and or merchants. It assumes all onions are the same and that the price is the standard by which it is sold. If that were so then we all would be driving Hugo's because the car was cheaper than any other's available. But we knew the car was flawed in so many ways and failed miserably because of it. When it comes to labor is it the employee that does his work the best or is it that he is more dependable than others or is it his education that is valued over the others that make him the best candidate for the job. But paying him the least is usually what you will get in return, the least happy to have do or get paid for the job. If you want a good employee you must at least get enough of his attention away from bills, rent and food expenses to be able to get him to focus on his job. The cheapest one is not always the best.Of course it assumes that all onions are the same, that's what "all things being equal" means!
Of course we don't all drive Hugos (whatever they are) but most wanting a cheap unreliable car would.
They same for all the other subsets that you mention, all other things being the same, the cheapest will usually win.
I don't agree that it should not have been set, since the thirties it has been in place and I believe that it is necessary. In your previous examples $14.00/hr for a fast food worker is too much, would you agree that $3.00/hour would be too low? Like the sweat shops of a century ago, why would the employer be concerned about a fair rate of compensation and why does virtually every nation on earth have such in provision in its labor policies, why is that? Why were labor unions necessary? As to who should set it, I am with you conservatives, let the market set it, but the minimum wage is to remain in force, otherwise the taxpayers will be forced to subsidize the difference between unrealistically low wages and what it takes to survive in this economy. There are military folks that have to have their wages supplemented, I don't think anyone believes that this should be necessary.
"I am with you conservatives, let the market set it"
Which it does; relatively few locations pay minimum wage anymore but as a starting salary with a raise expected in a few weeks. So why do we need laws to decide what the market is, laws that are out of date the day they are signed into effect? And you never did say who that minimum wage is supposed to support...Lets say that the minimum wage like other regulatory guidance is to keep the players honest. Responsible industrial firms know not to dispose of their wastes in the Rio Grande river, but unless it is legally mandated there is no reason why some would not try in order to cut costs. Common sense tells you that it is not safe to exceed certain speeds on the freeway. Most of us won't but there are always the few that stay under a posted speed limit solely because there are penalties when you don't. I do not trust the bourgeoisie/owner class to do the right thing without the force of law, that is my hang up. When you give an inch, they take a mile every time. In the interests of capitalism and the free market, the government has to step back, but there are boundaries that we are required to adhere to. Can you answer why most of the world require a minimum wage standard for its workers? Ask the preponderance of the world nations who their minimum wage laws are designed to protect and why. With a scarcity of jobs and a surplus of labor is it possible that supply and demand will bring wages down to a $1.00/hour? Without the law, what is to keep that from happening? Smells a great deal like the tenement house days where entire families, children included worked for pennies a day and JP Morgans, Andrew Carnagie's and such profited at their expense. That is a beginning of an answer to your questions. Conservatives always like to say that people, their sensibilities and conscience would prevent a repeat of this without the imposition of the law. Well, you know something, I am not so sure of that.
I am not totally against a minimum wage (surprise!) for the very reasons you give - it might promote a return to practices of the past. It also encourages automation, an increase in productivity for the nation, which has to be a good thing overall.
I AM against trying to guarantee that everyone can live off that minimum wage - THAT encourages the worker to do just that instead of improving his lot in life by better work and that is NOT a good thing for the country.
So the problem I see is that if it is set too high - high enough to support a family instead of just enough to squeak by for the single person entering the workforce - it becomes a force of inflation and just another entitlement. Have a minimum wage, fine, but one that no one wants to live on. Encourage, that is, the employer to produce more through other means than simple labor (stopping the near-slave actions from the past) while also encouraging the worker to improve the situation by finding better work, training, etc. Both are good for the nation while still giving that young worker the ability to support themselves.
Other countries - as I scan down the list there are lots of zeros for minimum wage. There are also lots of numbers so low they cannot produce that "living wage" even in third world countries.I am pleasantly surprised to find that you agree with the principle of minimum wage. As I told GA in another of replies, a "living wage ' is not the goal as it cannot really defined objectively. My idea about Minimum wage is to provide a floor to keep people out of poverty when they work an 8 hour day full time. Doing this without an inordinate use of the social services networks that passes problems of ones poverty on to the tax payer. I believe that is a reasonable expectation for this provision. I also mentioned to GA, that the BLS standard of what constitutes poverty income for an individual is a reasonable guide as to where that 'floor' needs to be. People with a dependent as the sole bread winner earning minimum wage may have to seek relief within the social services networks to account for the shortfall, while at the same time, making him or herself more marketable. That is part of what social services should be doing, facilitating that so that for most there is a hand up made available to escape poverty.
I couldn't find anything from the BLS that gave the poverty threshold. But the Department of Health and Human Services shows it as $11490 in 2013 ($5.52 per hour for full time workers) while the Census Bureau (which seems to use BLS figures) shows $11,888 for that same individual in 2013 ($5.71 per hour). Both are for single people without dependents; a reasonable base for minimum wage as that is who it is intended for; the worker entering the work force without real skills or knowledge.
That shows that the minimum wage is already far too high - do you agree?
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm
https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/I admit that I put myself in an uncomfortable position, but the poverty standard is a precipice that we should stay well away from. Single ,or otherwise how do you live on $5.00 an hour? But my research may force me to consider raising it substantially. Every dollar increase in the min wage may well mean less social subsidies for workers that ultimately come out of our pockets
I am glad to see you are not totally against having a minimum wage standard. You made some very good points in this response. Especially this one:
"I AM against trying to guarantee that everyone can live off that minimum wage - THAT encourages the worker to do just that instead of improving his lot in life by better work and that is NOT a good thing for the country."
I know it is corny, but... Amen Brother!
And your following discussion about setting it too high is also validated by a lot of studies. There seems to be a consensus among those making the studies that;
1) moderate graduated increases are sustainable without economic harm. such as; $7.25 to $8.00, (or possibly even a couple $.75+/- steps to President Obama's $9)
2) historically productive economic times have indicated a minimum wage rate that is around 40% - 45% of the median wage is an equitable balance that addresses both sides of the equation - minimum wage earners and employers. That means a $9.50 - $10.50 minimum wage rate might be a feasible target. But... a $1.50 - $2.25 rate jump is not moderate and would be harmful!
Baby steps. One step at a time. And since this has generally been the process in the past - maybe our politicians do listen to the experts sometimes.
As for your comment about other country's minimum wage rates, Politifacts did a nice examination that cast a different light on the raw dollar amount comparisons. For instance. France and Australia lead the pack when it comes to highest minimum wages, (Australia's equates to $16 something an hour USD). But when those rates are reevaluated relative to costs of living numbers - both boil down to a $10 and change figure. Still higher than the US, but not the outrageous difference "living wage" proponents like to portray.
GA
"...I do not trust the bourgeoisie/owner class ..."
Wow, did you really intend that as it came out? I bet there are a lot of small business owners that would love to be able to claim membership in your description.
I think you might have misspoke. I think you might have been poking at the "evil" Big Business corporations - which are really only .3% of all US businesses.
per SBA.gov
"Small businesses make up: 99.7 percent of U.S. employer firms, 64 percent of net new private-sector jobs, 49.2 percent of private-sector employment, 42.9 percent of private-sector payroll, 46 percent of private-sector output, 43 percent of high-tech employment, 98 percent of firms exporting goods, and 33 percent of ..."
Here are a few tidbits about America's Small Businesses, (your "bourgeoisie/owner class"):
(Yes, I am being lazy, this is a copy paste from this Forbes Article)
1) The SBA defines a small business as an enterprise having fewer than 500 employees
2) There are almost 28 million small businesses in the US and over 22 million are self employed with no additional payroll or employees (these are called nonemployers)
3) Over 50% of the working population (120 million individuals) works in a small business
4) Small businesses have generated over 65% of the net new jobs since 1995
5) Approximately 543,000 new businesses get started each month (but more employer businesses shut down than start up each month)
6) 7 out of 10 new employer firms survive at least 2 years, half at least 5 years, a third at least 10 years and a quarter stay in business 15 years or more
7) 52% of all small businesses are home-based
8) There were 22.5 million nonemployer firms in 2011 (up almost 2% from the year before)
9) To classify as a “nonemployer” business you must have annual business receipts of $1,000 or more and be subject to federal income taxes
10) Approximately 75% of all U.S. businesses are nonemployer businesses
11) 19.4 million nonemployer businesses are sole proprietorships, 1.6 million are partnerships and 1.4 million are corporations
12) The fastest growing sector for freelance businesses in 2011 included auto repair shops, beauty salons and dry cleaners
13) Total TOT +0.83% revenues from nonemployers hit $989.6 billion in 2011 (up 4.1% from 2010)
14) Nonemployers had average revenues of $44,000
15) Around 80% of nonemployer businesses for 2011 (or 18 million businesses) reported less than $50,000 in receipts
Do you really believe the barber that cuts your hair or the mechanic that fixes your car, or on and on... fit , "your "bourgeoisie/owner class"?
Or were you really intending to point your finger at the Walmarts, McDonalds, (a mis-catagorization), and Pepsicos, et al. ? That "evil" .3% of US businesses.
Bourgeoisie/owner class, ha, that's a good one. I can see the pull of the "dark" side must have caught you in a weak moment, because past exchanges have certainly shown you to be more sensible than that , "bourgeoisie/owner class" statement.
Geesh... Here, take my hand, I will lead you to the light.
GAI came off a little strident this time, and as a result I have to atone. Yes, I should have directed my comments to the minority of business and its resulting power, not the mom and pop hair styling salon around the corner. But, also based on past correspondence between us, I think you knew what I meant with the term bourgeoisie-owner class, no need to take me out of context.
Yes, our past exchanges did lead me to be surprised by your "bourgeoisie-owner class" characterization. But no, without further explanation in your original comment, I was not certain of just what you meant. Hence my questioning open statement, "
Wow, did you really intend that as it came out? "
Plus, I know that you are sometimes susceptible to the Dark Force, and I was concerned that you may have been having a relapse.
GA
"... wage standard as a floor to protect workers..."
You stole that! That was my line!
And your full comment reflects my line of reasoning regarding the minimum wage too. So, since you are agreeing with me, I suppose I can let you slide on it this time.
But don't think for a minute that my thoughts about the value of, and need for, a minimum wage standard will even begin to stretch to the sphere of this new "living wage" ridiculousness.
In researching this topic I also found that other data related to your BLS points, which addressed the negative job loss impact of minimum wage increases, seem to defy the logic of common sense. That logic being if an employer can only afford X$ for labor then an increase in labor costs must result in a reduction in the number of jobs offered. That sounded logical to me... but repeated studies, (good ones, not blog compilations), have shown that logic to be wrong. Whodathunkit?
But... and there is always a but, the connection between the stereotypical minimum wage earner and social welfare programs income - without program overhauls, a minimum wage increase will probably costs them money instead of adding to their income.
GAYour point is well received, GA, you are true to your hue. It is a 'purple' level of reasoning which I can't disagree with.
You said:
But don't think for a minute that my thoughts about the value of, and need for, a minimum wage standard will even begin to stretch to the sphere of this new "living wage" ridiculousness
The idea of a living wage is very subjective and not workable, but I believe that the Government's standard of under what annual income constitutes the equivalent of poverty wage is a good yardstick.
The conservatives (red) have complained since the 1930's about the concept of the minimum wage, how it would throw a monkey wrench into the economy and keep them from expanding their business by making labor too expensive. Yet, still, after almost 80 years I have yet to see the sky fall because of this provision.
You said:
But... and there is always a but, the connection between the stereotypical minimum wage earner and social welfare programs income - without program overhauls, a minimum wage increase will probably costs them money instead of adding to their income.
I agree and the proper adjustments need to made so that an increase does not have the opposite effect on the workersWhat is a "poverty wage?" I know I may be channeling Wilderness here, but what are the parameters you think should be included to determine your "poverty wage?" I ask because your own previous comments indicate the current minimum wage rate is above the current single person poverty level determination.
Our economic history and many credible studies have proven the "monkey wrench into the economy" argument to be unsupportable. It seems logical. It sounds like common sense; a budget can only afford a certain amount of labor costs - increase those costs and jobs will be lost, but facts have proven otherwise.
Of course we all can find links to battle with, so I won't provide any because my confidence is high that a diligent search, (not just a search for agreeable links), will validate my points.
1) the conservatives are wrong in their "it will kill jobs and raise prices" claims.
2) the liberals are wrong to try to turn the minimum wage discussion into the "can't support a family, isn't a living wage" justifications for huge minimum wage increases. Huge increases can be very harmful to our economy, but moderate graduated increases have proven to be economically absorbable(sp?) without harmful effects.
GA
I agree that to determine a minimum wage commensurate with abilities is one thing. And a minimal wage to support oneself and or a family is important. But the economics of paying the least for the most is not working. The reason is that making the least restricts the amount people have to spend. Our workforce is slowly turning into service oriented jobs with repair at the top of the wage scale. Is this enough to inspire people to spend? Because spending is the key element of a consumer based economy. Without consuming and spending the cycle is broken as there is no longer a need to provide the product or service without the demand. Billionaires have stated that they cannot spark the economy by hiring people where there is no demand for the products or services they provide. It is equally ridiculous to think that they could purchase enough washers and dryers or pants or cars to keep the cycle going. So to spark the economy there has to be a surplus or saved amount of money to buy these things. The only place that comes from is by working for it. But if the job is not paying you enough you will stagnate and likewise the economic cycle as well. With Americans working longer hours and improving productivity markedly, the work harder philosophy is becoming a do with less outcome. Essentially survival.
Is minimum wage then intended to support a family instead of just a single person starting out in their working life? How big a family? Three people? Six? Good health or bad? Who do you propose to guarantee support for?
Minimum wage should have some element of minimal needs being met but larger than that it should also serve to raise the standard to one in which the economic cycle is realized. With current wage standards being much less than those of the past, taking into account inflation, the trend towards wages is going the wrong way. Standardizing a wage based on human behavior rather than societal trends does not seem to be a working template. We are ultimately all related in our work, play and life patterns so why is the wage set at a different standard? With the gold standard going away and replaced with the debt standard how is anyone able to qualify to participate because inflation, profit margins and risk outpace their ability to earn due to a sub standard wage? If less people are able to participate in the economy the economy will shrink and so will the standard of living as we are no longer in even the top five standards of living in the world.
http://able2know.org/topic/55762-1
What does what top earners make, ("...money accumulated at the top..."), have to do with minimum wage rates? Surely you don't think those folks are in entry-level positions, which is what minimum wage is intended for.
As a responsible person, would you get married, or decide to have multiple kids if you were only earning minimum wage in an entry-level position? You say a single person can live on it, but add a few more responsibilities and it is a no-go. It sounds like you are heading in the direction of a "living wage" instead of a minimum wage. Why else would you equate, (generally speaking of course), poor life choices and an employer's responsibility to pay you what you need? And is it a sense of "fairness" that leads you to note the inequity of top earner increases and minimum wage increases?
I know Wilderness has addressed this a little further down, and it is one of his mantras, (with which I agree), but the value of a job, (labor performed), is the value that should be expected. A heart surgeon makes more than a ditch digger for a reason. A supervisor of the ditch diggers makes more than the ditch diggers for a reason.
I am a proponent of a minimum wage as a wage rate floor. And I am not against moderate adjustments, (read increases), that reflect economic changes, but what top earners make, and what it costs to support a family are not on my list of reasons for supporting the minimum wage.
Specifically, I have only one reason for supporting the minimum wage - as a guard against powerful unscrupulous businessmen.
GAMr. Anderson, you are succinct correct as usual! Minimum wage jobs are met to be entry level and temporary. Such jobs are for people with no skills and little education. Jobs are rated by their importance, status, and educational rank. Minimum wage jobs rate of pay is low because of the combined components of very little or no skills and the commensurate education. It does not take a high skill level to be a waitstaff, stockperson, clerk, receptionist, factory worker, or a laborer.
People enter such jobs because they have no measurable skill and/or very little education or irrelevant education. The more relevant, the more advanced education and/or skills, the more complex and higher level of jobs and the commensurate pay. All this hoopla about raising minimum wage is ridiculous. Minimum wage jobs are like welfare-it is supposed to be TEMPORARY, not permanent. Also a smart person avoids working minimum wage jobs. That is WHY people become educated and acquire a resonable high level of skills-to AVOID working crappy, mind-numbing minimum wage jobs that a rhesus monkey can do.
People who are the top earners have a combination of education, experience, extensive training, and have developed a brand. If a person has not effectively done these things, it is unlikely that he/she will be a top earner and have ownerships as far as socioeconomic/career success goes. Very wealthy people develop a brand which draws business, create jobs, and thus money for them e.g. celebrities, entrepeneurs, and even savvy businesspersons. If one wishes to be wealthy, develop something that the public wants, turn this public desire into an enviable brand, learn and develop your brand and be always be on top, even ahead as far as your game goes.Thanks for the props GM.
You make some valid points, but.... there is valid reasoning behind the push for a minimum wage increase. I have spoken to those in responses to Credence2 and Wilderness. I hope you will take a look and let me know if it there might be some flexibility in your stance.
GA
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
John . I'm afraid it's painfully obvious that your grasp of what capitalism and America are morphing into is just lacking . The cost of labor IS ultimately the biggest factor in the 'cost of doing business' here . Any paycheck is , in the final equation , the biggest percentage of a products cost . Whether the burger or the automobile . By a government mandate- that sets that very cost of doing business - you thereby affect the total outcome of any business for profit . If government sets the cost of labor then it must also set the margin of net profit , No?......A market of competitive pricing cannot be dictated by government -and still be successful .
And you reckon you have a better grasp of economics than an economist!
I take it you didn't bother to read the link I posted,
If you really think that a doubling of wages would lead to a 35 fold increase in the cost of a burger then let me sell you this bridge I own.
http://fortune.com/2013/11/12/why-wal-m … -50-raise/
It's a bit simplistic to say that labour is the biggest factor in doing business in the US. Some businesses have high labour costs others do not.
Why, if government sets the minimum cost for labour, must they also set the margins for profit?What business doesn't have, as it's biggest cost, labor? Don't forget to factor in the labor costs of their "raw materials" - the car dealership selling cars, for instance, must pay for the labor to build that car.
I'd rather you told me which businesses have as its biggest cost, labour.
It may well be the company digging ditches by hand, but as soon as they buy a back-hoe then machinery costs far exceed labour costs.
The car dealership selling cars must pay the costs of the machinery used to build the cars which will exceed the labour cost many times. And don't forget, that labour cost is a cost to the makers, The only labour cost to the dealer is that involved in selling the cars.Whups! You forgot to include the labor of building that backhoe. Or of digging the iron ore out of the ground, or building the smelting plant.
At the bottom nearly all of the cost of any product is labor. Actual raw materials from the earth are cheap. Labor costs go down with mechanization, yes, but labor is still the largest factor when it (as it must) includes all factors. Which is why although labor costs per hour have gone up, the price of most things has remained stable or gone down. Compare, for instance, the cost of a car 50 years ago to the much superior car in the same category today, in terms of hours worked to buy it.No, I didn't forget the cost of labour for building that back-hoe any more than the builders did. The invoice showed the total cost to the buyer, not a break down of costs.
Again, a very large part of winning the ore would be in the machinery and a very large cost of building the smelter would be in land purchase and materials.
However far back you take it, labour is not the largest cost, it's frequently exceeded by profit.Really? I can't think of a single industry that could double it's labor costs and still show a profit. If there IS, I submit that they produce nothing of value. A brokerage firm, with a single person handling billions in trades maybe, and even then I would seriously question it.
Yes, the smelter has a large cost in machinery (which is because someone paid people to make it) and building (because someone was paid to build it). Someone paid to have the raw ore dug up and transported - more labor costs.
Even the hated WalMart could not double labor costs and have anything left.Actually, Wal-mart could double wages and still show a great profit. Though I agree they produce nothing of value.
Hmm. Walmart returned 13 billion in dividends; this is profit that is not used to grow the business.
Walmart has some 2 million employees. That's about $6,000 per employee - I do believe the employees of WalMart, on the average, earn more than $6,000 per year and THAT means it CANNOT double wages without going in the hole each year.Here's the Wal-Mart article again http://fortune.com/2013/11/12/why-wal-m … -50-raise/
Even if I agreed with the article (I don't, as you'll see), it is still saying only 50%, not a 100% raise. And it isn't for everyone, only those with lower pay, meaning that it isn't even 50%.
But it is all predicated on the thinking that investors are willing to take a big pay cut. The author indicates that "most" profits are re-invested, but that isn't true; 2/3 are given out in dividends, which means that problem is much worse than stated.
Then the author says that because ROE is higher than most companies, it means the investor thinks wages should go up, which is pure baloney. Most of the ROE is from rising price to book values, because the dividend is higher than normal. That does NOT mean investors want higher wages; it means they LIKE the lower wages. The real owners, in other words, like what is happening even as they pay lip service to changing it.However you cook it they can afford it.
As for the idea that shareholders are more important than employees, well that's typical capitalist thinking and, guess what, I don't share it.
You baulk at the idea of shareholders taking a big cut in their income but you are perfectly happy for the people who are producing the profits for those shareholders to not share in their production.
Of course it isn't an across the board pay rise, many are already paid more than enough.The comment was that WalMart could double wages and make a profit. Your link shows otherwise.
Of course a select few could have double the wage and make a profit, but then that's true whether it is the board members or the handful at the bottom. No one would ever argue that in any but the smallest companies. You just can't do what you claimed, even after the top tier is eliminated. As your link shows.
ALL are important, whether investor, management or worker. I know that is an anathema to the socialist, who somehow thinks government as an investor has unlimited money or that management is unnecessary. I don't think I've ever heard anyone telling the boss to cut their wage (long term; I did for a single job once) in order to pay someone else more, and investors are no different than anyone else.
Don't forget that the investor (whether government from taxes or individuals from their savings) is a person, too, and just as important for producing profits as the shelf stocker is. Lose either one and there ARE no profits, nor jobs.
"...many are already paid more than enough." Enough for what? Their yacht, or just that new cell phone the 12 year old wants for Xmas? Just because John Holden says he knows what is "enough" doesn't mean that the employee agrees, and of the two I think I know better which one to listen to as a potential employer. I really don't think we'll find a competent CEO for a multi-billion dollar business by saying "Well, John Holden says that $50,000 is enough; that's what we'll pay even though other companies are paying $10,000,000 for the same job".But you insist on preserving the shareholders profits at the expense of the shelf stacker's!
How about making the shelf stacker's shareholders?
Oh that's right, they have no surplus cash to invest!And you insist that the shelf stocker is more important or has more needs than the investor.
You know, most investors are just people like you and I. Few of them are the multi-billionaires you like to portray them as - they have needs, they have families and they often depend on that income for survival. I know I do: my social security isn't enough to feed me and my investments must make up the difference.You know, you bewilder me.
First you tell me that people should stand on their own two feet and not look to anybody else for support, that wealth redistribution is inequitable.
Then you tell me that some shouldn't be allowed to earn enough to support themselves and that any surplus wealth that they do produce should be given to those who don't want to work!Now, now. YOU'RE the one claiming no one is "allowed" (by some undefined company/person/circumstance) to earn a living while at the same time demanding that they be paid more than the value of the work they DO do. Not I - I find that anyone that wants to work, can, and moreover can earn enough to live on. Barring physical/mental handicaps of course. Personal choices DO make a huge difference in both needs and ability to earn, of course.
You're the one supporting payments for long term non-work not I. As soon as the work "starve" is introduced into the discussion (whether valid or not) the money shovel comes out and we "owe" the poor more than they get.Again, you are dodging the issue. Well they do say that the best form of defence is attack! Keep up the good work.
Who defines the value of the work that somebody does? I know I've asked you that before but again you avoided answering my question.
How would you expect somebody working at or near the minimum wage to save enough to retire on? They barely have enough to live on.
I have never supported payments for long term none work, I frequently say " provide enough jobs for people to do for a decent wage and get them off support.
Anyway, back to my original question. Why do you speak out against the concept of wealth redistribution unless that redistribution is upwards to those who don't work?No, I didn't dodge the question. The answer has always been the market place, which you seem to think is a person somewhere in the bowels of the government.
I don't expect a beginning worker, just entering the workforce, to save for retirement. That comes later as their skills and abilities make their work more valuable. It would be like asking a college student to save, because they ARE working to improve themselves.
You say for someone to supply the jobs, but won't do it yourself. Who do you THINK is responsible for supplying jobs?
Wealth redistribution is not a freely accepted contract between two people; equal values are exchanged or the contract will not be accepted.What sort of answer is "the market place" to
"First you tell me that people should stand on their own two feet and not look to anybody else for support, that wealth redistribution is inequitable.
Then you tell me that some shouldn't be allowed to earn enough to support themselves and that any surplus wealth that they do produce should be given to those who don't want to work!"I Never said Bill Gates should get his salary - I leave those billions to the socialists to complain about. You're not only allowed to earn as much as you can, but encouraged to.
Except those who aren't! After all, profit is king.
Be careful there - your socialism is slipping. They'll kick you out of the club if they haven't already for saying people either work or starve.
Again, you show your lack of knowledge.
There is nothing socialist about living off benefits, that's pure capitalism, you know, unemployment used as a tool to keep wages down.Right! It was a capitalist that said "To each according to his need". Benefits, in other words.
No, earnings in other words. You left off the second part "from each according to his ability".
Benefits for the fit and healthy do not enter into socialist theory. They are a capitalist construct to stop those whose unemployment is required to keep wages down from revolting.
The funny thing is that the investor always feels that he is the one who should earn more than the worker. Is it because he has more at risk? Does the worker risk anything? How about the inventor with his investment of time and effort to bring an idea to fruition? Is the investors ability to monetize the invention worth that much more? Where would the investor be without the idea? Because the investor holds the purse strings he is able to dictate the terms in many situations as bringing an invention to market is tedious and filled with pitfalls for the inventor. But I guess that has no monetary value does it as money is always at the center of everything in this country and ideas are a dime a dozen as they say..
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
Because John , respectfully , one cannot ask or regulate more out or of an economic equation by adding more cost than by adding profit too ! Not at least in the free market system . Simply put ,how can we demand more wage out of one hamburger than profit itself ? Total or net profit is the reason all business [here] is transacted . Now , it may be another story in an economy that is dictated from the top down such as socialism . Where I assume , a paycheck comes to everyone whether profitable or not to the company or institution . The only one there to worry about the future is the government . Here , if profit weren't part of the equation no one would invest or succeed in business, and thus job creation or sustainability I'm not an economist but - to take away the incentive for making profit in THIS economy would be and is a growth flattening proposition !
It isn't that simple.
You pay low wages and you don't get worker loyalty. You have a high staff turnover with all the associated costs. Result lower profit.
You pay a decent wage and the reverse happens. Profits go up.
It's a shame that you didn't bother to read any of the links that I posted explaining it all.
I don't know why you needed to repeat your lack of understanding of socialism-are you telling me that capitalism isn't dictated top down? Yet a system where the workers have more power is dictated top down!"You pay low wages and you don't get worker loyalty. You have a high staff turnover with all the associated costs. Result lower profit.
You pay a decent wage and the reverse happens. Profits go up."
True, to a point. That point being where the labor costs are greater than the sales price of the product. At that point it falls apart, and rather quickly.But labour costs are way off being greater than the sales price. Didn't you read that little piece I posted about Wal-Mart?
No, I missed that one. I DID see where someone claimed that WalMart could raise their labor from minimum wage to over $10, though - 2 minutes of math and a little googling showed that to a fallacy. What was the claim from your link?
That shareholders would actually be happier if they raised their wage to $15, but read it, it isn't long.
So the shareholders would be happier if, instead of quartely dividends, they get to subsidize the business weekly instead? Somehow I rather doubt that - someone has told them WalMart has unlimited money for wages and they swallowed it whole like any good socialist.
*edit* I can't seem to find the link. Drat these long threads!
Grace, I'm sure that if you had anything meaningful to say you could say it in a lot less time than it must take you to find these images.
Related Discussions
- 11
What do you think about Socialism? Good or Bad for America?
by Peter V 10 years ago
What do you think about Socialism? Good or Bad for America?I have my own opinion but what do you think of the current direction America is heading (towards socialism)? Do you think this is very bad and goes against what America was founded on or is this generally a good thing? Please support your...
- 85
CPAC Socialism Fearmongering and the Internet's Rebuttals
by J Conn 5 years ago
Recently, at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), conservatives had a common theme of railing against Socialism due to some of the progressives that have announced their candidacy for the presidency.Some of the internet comments made when this fearmongering was discovered were just...
- 286
Why Is the Right so Scared (and confused) by Democratic Socialism?
by J Conn 5 years ago
This article tended to resonate with how the left and the right view the issue.https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/opin … union.html
- 10
Justice Scalia And Constitutional Fundementals
by ga anderson 9 months ago
Fundamentals - the foundation of every argument. This one is about the dangers of centralized government.GA
- 117
Is Wal-Mart good for America?
by WorldCup~2010 13 years ago
We are talking about Wal-Mart at school right now and there are two sides to this story. The bad side is how Wal-Mart is moving all of their manufacturing jobs over seas which ends up having a negative effect here in America. But also, Americans are getting rock bottom prices on most goods Wal-Mart...
- 266
Clarity Please Conservatives
by Charles James 13 years ago
As some fellow hubbers will know, I am involved in writing hubs for a Socialism 101 series.There are a few issues raised by the conservatives where I do not fully understand what they are saying. Before I address these in a hub or hubs I really would like clarity on what exactly the conservative...