jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (164 posts)

America -Olong the way to Socialism .

  1. ahorseback profile image50
    ahorsebackposted 2 years ago

    Take 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 ?

    1. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Nothing in there to suggest that your country is morphing into socialism, nothing at all.

      1. Credence2 profile image86
        Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        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?

        1. GA Anderson profile image87
          GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          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.

          GA

          1. Credence2 profile image86
            Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            GA, 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.

            1. John Holden profile image59
              John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Many, especially Americans, do not seem to understand socialism. How can they be either for or against something they don't understand?

              1. Credence2 profile image86
                Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                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.

                1. John Holden profile image59
                  John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  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.

                  1. Credence2 profile image86
                    Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    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?

                    1. John Holden profile image59
                      John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                      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.

            2. GA Anderson profile image87
              GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              "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.

              GA

              1. Credence2 profile image86
                Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                We 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....

      2. cjhunsinger profile image69
        cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this


        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.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          soft despotism

        2. 60
          retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          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

      3. GA Anderson profile image87
        GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        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

    2. ahorseback profile image50
      ahorsebackposted 2 years ago

      My bad ,misspelled Along !

      1. GA Anderson profile image87
        GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        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

    3. tirelesstraveler profile image86
      tirelesstravelerposted 2 years ago

      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.

    4. ahorseback profile image50
      ahorsebackposted 2 years ago

      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 !

      1. John Holden profile image59
        John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Ah, you're talking about welfare payments paid to big business!
        I'm right behind you on this one (sorry).

    5. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 2 years ago

      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.

      1. John Holden profile image59
        John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        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)

    6. ahorseback profile image50
      ahorsebackposted 2 years ago

      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 ?

      1. John Holden profile image59
        John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        So you reckon by paying the man who makes the burger $14 an hour his production would drop to around one burger an hour!

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          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.

          1. John Holden profile image59
            John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            "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/

    7. ahorseback profile image50
      ahorsebackposted 2 years ago

      One thing about a working capitalistic society , The math has to work ! But then our culture is really  flunking in math tests .

    8. ahorseback profile image50
      ahorsebackposted 2 years ago

      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 .

      1. rhamson profile image76
        rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        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_Ford

        1. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Bravo, 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.

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to 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?

            1. Credence2 profile image86
              Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                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).

                1. John Holden profile image59
                  John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Why don't you tell us who you think should set the minimum and why.

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    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.

                    1. John Holden profile image59
                      John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                      And what or who is the market?

                2. Credence2 profile image86
                  Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  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.

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    "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...

                    1. Credence2 profile image86
                      Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                      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.

              2. GA Anderson profile image87
                GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                "... 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. smile

                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.

                GA

                1. Credence2 profile image86
                  Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Your 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 workers

                  1. GA Anderson profile image87
                    GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    What 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

                    1. Credence2 profile image86
                      Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                      I can live with your assessment here.....

          2. rhamson profile image76
            rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            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.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              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?

              1. rhamson profile image76
                rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                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

          3. GA Anderson profile image87
            GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            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.

            GA

            1. gmwilliams profile image85
              gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Mr. 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.

              1. GA Anderson profile image87
                GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                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

    9. ahorseback profile image50
      ahorsebackposted 2 years ago

      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 .

      1. John Holden profile image59
        John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        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?

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          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.

          1. John Holden profile image59
            John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            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.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. John Holden profile image59
                John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                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.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  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.

                  1. John Holden profile image59
                    John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Actually, Wal-mart could double wages and still show a great profit. Though I agree they produce nothing of value.

                    1. wilderness profile image97
                      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                      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.

    10. ahorseback profile image50
      ahorsebackposted 2 years ago

      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 !

      1. John Holden profile image59
        John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        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!

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          "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.

          1. John Holden profile image59
            John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            But labour costs are way off being greater than the sales price.  Didn't you read that little piece I posted about Wal-Mart?

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              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?

              1. John Holden profile image59
                John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                That shareholders would actually be happier if they raised their wage to $15, but read it, it isn't long.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  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!

    11. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 2 years ago

      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.

     
    working