|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
The minimum wage is a joke and I think it should be abolished. Let the market system determine what the wages should be!
I know, some of you will scream and holler, but as a former retail business owner, it undermines the market system for wages.
The market sysem will do what it always does and pay as little as it can, you may not like it but it prevents the near enslavement of large parts of the workforce. You forget what things were like in the past too quickly.
well, you forget living on minimum wage is a living hell! If abolished some workers will be more needed and wages will rise. Creating an artificial barrier is an illusion that will not help anyone.
I don't see how getting rid of the minimum wage could increase wages.
The problem with allowing the market to set wages without interference is immigration, which tends to put a big downward pressure on wages for low-skilled worked.
If you stop immigration then you can let the market decide, and if the wages are too low then people won't do the job and they will have to rise. But otherwise employers just import cheap labour (or get cheap labour from new immigrants) and keep the lower end wages down at a level that is lower than a proper living wage.
Yes living on minimum wage is hell so lets try China's way of doing things right??
After all they have no minimum wage, they go by the good hearted business folk and the "market system".
Foxconn the people who make the iPad everyone loves to buy, was paying there workers so cheaply and working them like dogs that the job stress contributed to their suicides.
Well no worries after the tenth suicide they raised their pay 20% from the $130 the were making.
These people take these jobs because they have to and then when they realize just how bad their only option is they would rather die.
I mean they could really teach the unemployed around a lesson huh?
Here is the Article:
http://gizmodo.com/5542527/undercover-r … ll-factory
This is business unregulated. Want some? Think it can't happen here in America, think again. It already does and it's only going to get worse the more we deregulate.
Sort of like this:
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/vi … 5b8c73263d
I guess he shouldn't complain I mean for 14 hours a day 30 days a month he could make a living right?
Actually, if it was up to me, China goods would carry very high tarrifs not because of the low wages but, because of the clever manipulation of trade rules with the agreement of U S congress!
Agreed. I don't think most people understand just how much this has had a negative impact on our economy.
Yeah - go and blame someone else for your ingrown problems
The US has been a net importer for more than twenty years - your economy has been in crisis for longer than that. The only thing holding you back from tipping over the edge is your war industry. The people buying the goods from China and selling them to you ARE your own masters and the very people who make your trade rules and laws.
You now have a huge problem, China is set for economic expansion for the next twenty years, as your economy stalls and slides, and will be the biggest market AND the biggest producer - the days of the US imposing its unfair trade advantages are pretty much over.
China can expand all it wants, but your system of govt is doomed to fail. You fail to realize that the west owns the intellectual properties used in most manufacturing in china.
USA has problems but i would take it any day over communist china!
The topic is on minimum wage requirements in the USA not the lopsided trade laws that currently favor China!
Never blamed someone else. It's a problem of our own creation. The trade agreements between China and the US are lopsided.
That's true. China steals technology and doesn't enforce intellectual property rules. That's where the old expression "Chinese copy" came from.
This is true - it balances the lop side of the argument of US restrictive trade practices and the scam of artificially manipulating the dollar while penalising others for doing less
U.S. trade practices are less restrictive than most advanced countries. And I'm not aware that the we are "manipulating the value of the dollar." China is the one who is keeping the value of its currency artificially low. At least that's what our best economists are saying.
That is not what a 'top' UK economist was saying on tv a few months back - he was quite blunt - he said that the manipulation of the dollar is such a broad, long running scam that it is now institutionalised. or something of that sort. That was back when the US was lip waving at China over the level of the RMNB, causing China to stop following hte dollar and linking to a basket of other major currencies, since when it has remained stable at the same level as previously. Much to my annoyance as I am sending money out of China at the moment and paying heavily for the excercise.
Sorry - I only got it second hand as I am not close enough to watch UK tv - Moat of the papers picked it up at the time that the US was making noises about the Yuan
It's not the opinion of one economist. It's a fairly common news story in the UK, small niche companies fairly dependent on exports to the US suddenly finding themselves cut off by 100% tariffs. It isn't all ways the US protecting its own markets either.
That seems surprising to me. Can you be more specific?
Not easily, my memory isn't asgood as it once was
One example that springs to mind was a knitwear factory in the Highlands, employing a handful of people and producing traditional knitwear with a large market amongst American golfers. At this distance, I can't remember the reason for the 100% tariff but it wasn't directly related to trade.
Well, the EC imposes tariffs on a number of goods from the U.S. and other countries:
WTO raps EU tariffs on technology goods
* EU loses WTO suit over information technology
Mon, Aug 16 2010
* EU criticises WTO ruling on information technology
Mon, Aug 16 2010
* UPDATE 3-NY AG files price-fixing suit vs LCD makers
Fri, Aug 6 2010
By Jonathan Lynn
GENEVA | Mon Aug 16, 2010 5:22pm EDT
GENEVA (Reuters) - A World Trade Organization panel gave broad backing on Monday to the United States, Japan and Taiwan in their complaint over controversial European duties on electronics products, and told Brussels to bring its trade measures into line with international rules.
The panel said the EU had imposed the duties on flat-panel displays, multifunction printers and television set-top boxes in violation of the WTO's Information Technology Agreement.
U.S. trade officials estimated worldwide trade in the three products at $44 billion in 2009. The European Union's 27 nations imported $7 billion worth of the products that year.
The European Commission criticized the 704-page ruling before it was published, repeating its view that negotiations on a comprehensive revision of the agreement were preferable to litigation on only a few aspects of it.
"The report does not establish general principles that would imply any form of generalized conclusions," it said in a statement. "Negotiations are the vehicle for mutually beneficial liberalization."
But it remains to be seen how seriously the EU's partners will take the call for negotiations on a revised pact when they believe Brussels is not even living up to the existing one.
Japan's minister of economy, trade and industry, Masayuki Naoshima, welcomed the ruling and called on the European Union to remove the illegal tariffs immediately.
U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk said the United States had won an "important victory."
U.S. and Asian electronics producers like Hewlett-Packard Co, Motorola and Cisco unit Scientific Atlantic, are awaiting any sign that the EU might appeal the WTO panel's findings.
The parties have 60 days in which to appeal, but the Commission said Brussels had not yet decided whether to do so.
"The EU has lost on everything, so if it appeals, it has nothing to lose. I think they will appeal," said Philippe De Baere, a partner at Van Bael & Bellis, which has represented Taiwan and Japan in the case.
The Information Technology Agreement, which is voluntary, abolished tariffs among 72 countries on products like computer screens and printers to foster trade in high-tech goods.
But the EU argued that added functionality since the agreement was reached in 1996 meant that some products were now consumer goods rather than information technology, and so were not entitled to the zero tariffs under the deal.
For instance, it said flat-panel computer displays could also now serve as television screen.
[Trade and tariff regulations are a complicated subject. I don't pretend to know much about the subject. My impression is that trade is far from free or fair.]
I read this as a wrinkle in the arm wrestling over trade tariffs and duties where the US a(nd its Japanese pet trade dog) attack (as it says) a few elements were challenged rather than a more appropriate negotiation of the whole area - taking such snippets of information are not representative of the whole picture in the same way.
These minor pissing matches go on daily, but the real trade restrictions and manipulation keeps poor African and Indian farmers from using crops that would improve their conditions, ensures bananas are penalised unless they originate in american controlled places, and pours heavily subsidised US rice into developing countries to get rid of the unrealistic surpluses caused by the subsidies - and destroys much of that country's fragile farming industry.
Well, American, UK and German workers have a hard time competing against unrepresented, poorly paid workers in unsafe, un-hygenic, polluting factories. China has nothing to complain about insofar as trade is concerned.
I invite you to come and stay with me here for a week - free. We can go take a look at those factories if you like. In the huge range you can see with your own eyes are some of the most efficient and high tec workplaces down to backstreet workshops that recycle the electronic and other goods. Your information is a little out of date, all the factories were moved out of the cities more than ten years ago and the cleaning and greening of those spaces is a big industry now. In a growing economy there will always be the worst places on the fringes but these also exist in collapsing eocnomies, I am sure you can find such places in the US - but categorising them in such a way is totally incorrect.
I agree. I mean, Asia has boomed. Thanks to American investors avoiding American labor laws.
You over-estimate the American investor contribution by a huge factor. I will try to look the figures up for you but from observation, I have only seen consulting style companies and a few financial branches, maybe in Beijing and Shanghai there are more but we don't see them about. There are a few factories that wre started by American companies, I am aware of a relatively large number of tyre factories - but they pretty much all faded away quite quickly. I understand there are a couple of big ones in Guangdong that are doing ok.
From what I've read the big Chinese factories pack their workers like sardines into huge company dormitories where the suicide rate has been quite high lately. When sales decline workers are dismissed to fend for themselves with no unemployment insurance or other aid. American UK and European companies learned the hard way early in the twentieth century that company towns and housing and company stores breed discontent and don't work out very well. And in the 1930s they learned the hard way that unemployment compensation, workers compensation, safety regulations and the right to organize and bargain collectively over the terms and conditions of their employment were needed. China will learn this as well one of these days.
And I've heard first hand reports that the air is unfit to breath in some of your cities, and not getting better.
Not really. American companies have pressured china to improve their work conditions.
This is actually funny. American pressure is a puff of media air, although some of the practices are copied while others rejected out of hand.
With some results in American-owned plants, but a long way to go. Labor rights are unknown in China, and social insurance is unheard of.
According to CCBT and others - this is a good thing, leaving everything to market focres.
And you are not totally correct, there is a form of compulsory insurance in Chinese labour law for both health and unemployment. Also recently education to 16 became free.
The Chinese do not reckon much on western attitudes to labour and each other. Whilst emerging businesses and developing companies have been pretty much free to grow without restriction, like the industries within the cities, more focus is now being put on human relationships in the cities and businesses. The factories have been moved out into new industrial parks and social pressure is improving the conditions of labour in line with the occasional government directive calling for one change or another, not so much through legislation.
In 2005 (I think it was) art was told to challenge and diversify, effectively giving artists back the right to comment on society which they did with some energy. A few years ago there was a publicity campaign about litter and most cities are now hugely more tidy than before. Things are done differently here and confrontational challenging divisive scenarios are avoided - unlike western systems that wallow in them. As the country gets more wealthy it would be expected that the conditions you talk about will improve in tandem. You have to remember that around half of China still lives in the countryside in pretty much base living conditions, at least they are living conditions I have to say. I estimate that it will take twenty years for the current economic rise to even begin to flatten out, plenty of time for improvement yet.
"Things are done differently here and confrontational challenging divisive scenarios are avoided - unlike western systems that wallow in them."
That's a quaint way of putting it. Translated it means "No freedom of speech here." Or you can exercise your freedom of speech from prison."
That is the xenophobic way of translating what I say I suppose - in reality it means what I said - that in all walks of life confrontation is avoided. Chinese normally solve issues in a roundabout way, they say "harmoniously" and this has some connections with their general lack of aggression.
This is in comparison to the western way of division, aggression, anger and arrogance, such as your post displays.
well, it doesn't change the fact that your goods are made mostly there. and the question is WHY
There is no single simple answer. But the main reason American manufacturers move to China or import from Chinese manufacturers is because the U.S. blind devotion to "free trade" allows them to outsource and because they can't compete in the United States with Chinese workers who make $90 a month to work long hours without the right to unionize in unsafe, unhygienic, polluting plants. Walmart hardly sells anything not made in China, Cambodia, Bangladesh and other countries where wages and working conditions are even more abysmal than in China.
It is American UK and German companies who hire asians, not americans. Do you know how many companies outsource their call centers? Ever wonder why? These are not unhygenic sweatshops. These are desk jobs. And they're going to asia.
Well, here's what one of our Nobel prize economists, Paul Krugman, says about China's currency manipulations and trade:
"Democrats could also demand that the administration--specifically the Treasury--act on the problem of China's currency manipulation. which keeps the remnimbi artificially cheap compared to the dollar. While China's actions are not the main factor in our economic woes, they are a factor. China's unprecedented level of currency manipulation siphons off demand for U.S. products that is much needed in our depressed economy, and shifts our imports away from other countries such as Mexico that are much more likely to reciprocate with purchases of American goods. The obvious American response is to threaten, and if necessary actually impose, countervailing duties on Chinese exports--a step that is backed even by strong advocates of free trade, such as Fred Bergsten of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Such a move would have overwhelming Democratic support in Congress, and would put Republicans on the spot if they tried to block it."
The New York Review of Books January 13, 2011.
Yes - this is what Krugman has been saying all along - most of the rest of the world don't agree with him, but don't let that get in the way of blaming eveyone else for the economic problems the US has brought on itself through rampant corporate greed, unneccessary and primitive wars, and general self centred consumption on borrowed money at the expense of the developing world.
Not just Krugman. Most economists do agree that the remimnbi is undervalued as a matter of Chinese government policy. If you have evidence to the contrary, please let us have it.
I am sure it is, I was not arguing that it wasn't - however so is the Dollar according to the rest of the world, and it has been artificially kept there for so long it appears normal. I guess China learned how to do it from you guys huh ?
When your crunch comes that will be one of the issues that will make it appear worse than it is. The adjustment to living within your means is a painful and humiliating process at a personal and national level, but I expect the Chinese will treat the US a lot better than the US has treated them.
What? Thanks to our blind dedication to the principle of "free" trade, we've allowed a good portion of our manufacturing industry and its technology to be transferred to China and allowed the goods to be imported free of tariffs, for the most part by WalMart, et al. Seems to me we've treated China with "kid gloves" for the most part.
these are market forces. you can't have a closed economy either. that is economic death. You respond. You're losing manufacturing to asian countries, make your labor force more competitive. It sounds simple but the backlash will be traumatic. It's not easy, still. if you're fat. exercise.
The problem isn't with the labor force. Do you really think we could find people to work for $90 a month? Our labor force is better educated and just as hard working as any in the world. One contributor is that U.S. tax laws encourage outsourcing. Another is that our establishment blindly worships free trade, but is at the same time unwilling to deal fairly with the consequences. Moreover, China's manipulation of its currency to keep in undervalued is another disadvantage for American manufacturers.
You have not allowed anything - China has done it all without permission - or needing any. All they had to do was offer cheaper goods and your masters snapped them up without a single moments thought for the people of the US. Mind you it was the people who bought them so I guess it is nobody's fault but your own ?
On a more serious note - I would say that the upward direction of the Chinese economy is unstoppable, and the changes the US would have to make to fix your economic situation are not possible at this advanced stage down the slope. History tells us that your normal tactic is to start a war when your economy slips too far, lets hope that is not the result this time around huh. What with Israel and some of the arab states with nukes and the fundies on both sides praying for the end of the world.
Are you being paid as a publicist by the Chinese government. Or are you worried that your communications are being monitored by the government?
I am just putting the other side of the picture - here I go to the same lengths to the opposite when people blindly attack the actions or motives of other countries from a position of ignorance and simple pre-conception.
I would exclude you from these categories as I think you are just out of date.
My personal position is that without real knowledge of what is actually happening on both sides conflict is certain.
Excuse me if I point up reality too bluntly.
AWESOME REPLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! EPIC REPLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I COULDN'T HAVE OUTDONE THAT ONE IF I'D TRIED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"let the market work things out," that is the stupidest bit of G.O.P. propaganda I've ever heard repeated, and I hear it time after time. We've got people so stupid in the U.S., that they just repeat whatever their favourite parrot in office says, and they believe that crap. Nobody tries to think for themselves, we've all been socially conditioned by the globalist media.
So, you want to have clothes made overseas for five cents an hour instead of ten cents an hour? I see, you sir make a fine capitalist.
Your reply makes no sense? I want everyone to have the right to make a living wage and a real one. Or are you not talking to me.
I have been a "Trade Unionist" and a Contract Negotiator for over 47 years. If you abolish minimum wage which is a government control over the minimum that an employer can pay an employee then you could end up with slave labour conditions because no employer wants to pay even a fair price for labour the cheaper they can get labour the better as far as they are concerned. What would be more beneficial for all, is for the government to raise the minimum wage and lower the cost of living expenses, but this is not in government's interest. Shake your head and smell the coffee man.
G.O.P. tea drinkers sometimes think that capitalism is righteousness in motion, they've read that stupid Ayn Rand book, and fell for that crap. There is nothing good or fair about capitalism, and people will never do the right things for other people unless they have to. Of course that is a generalization, and there are good, fair people, even some good, fair tea drinkers; but by and large, the G.O.P. sold us down the river, and paid someone overseas or South of the border less money to do the jobs that we were doing. Why? "so the market could work itself out."
In English, that translates as: "I'm a greedy, canabalistic pig, and I enjoy bacon."
the govt is not good at running a business. Everyone forgets you are free to start your own business and then pay to your hearts desires!
Do you know about 70% of new businesses fail within the first 5 years. All invested money gone.
You talk about unions, they have so screwed up the wage scale in this country. Can you imagine in NYC they have some sanitation workers making more than teachers, doctors. Toll collectors making more than many graduates.
Now, you act surprised many companies are running to low wage countries!
Thank you for that, Dave.
The last thing we should think about doing is abolishing the minimum wage.
And you explained why.
I totally agree. If someone's going to do a job for 50 cents, then let him do it for 50 cents. It's a free country. Put an offer out, and if there are takers, let them take it. But know that as the job becomes more competitive/in demand if your salary offer is too low, you will lose your workers.
The minimum wage is just giving the jobs to illegal workers.
Wurd to that! I know numerous managers who wish they could hire more people.
The problem is that hiring a kid at 7.00/hour doesn't compensate for the 6.00 in revenue per hour they'd gain by hiring them.
Want an entry level job because you're a teenager entering the marketplace trying to boost your resume? Too bad!
When times are good and companies are competing for employees, that would work swell, but right now when times are tough and it is hard for people to get jobs many businesses would severely try to get as close to slave labor as possible.
I used to believe all in the market system growing up, but once in the real world idealology is left behind. Reality sets in, and that reality is regulation is needed unfortunately. You cannot have expect businesses to truly run by the honor system. Even those started by well meaning people can grow so big and cut throat that they will cut corners, even moralistic ones (or even ones that hurt themselves in the long run).
Q1:Why are people looking for jobs?
A1:Because they can't get hired.
Q2:Why can't they get hired?
A2:It's not worth the money to an employer to hire them.
Q3:Why isn't it worth the money to an employer?
A3:Because the potential employee is only worth $X/hour, but the employer has to pay him $X+1/hour.
Q4:Why does a McDonald's restaurant have more machines than people?
A4:Because when you make labor cost $7.25/hour, you make "buying a machine to replace a worker" much more cost efficient.
Q5:What are the long term effects of having so many specialized machines? (eg: a machine that perfectly measures out how much change needs to be dished out instead of relying on an employee to count it out)
A5:Those super-specialized machines cost money, and thus the capital structure of these buildings will permanently be set at $7.25/hour labor-rates.
Q6:What does that mean?
A6:It means that the minimum wage literally makes low-skill employment harder to come by, and it artificially makes high-skill jobs heavily sought after... even thought they aren't needed.
Why can't they get hired?
Er, there are no jobs for them, cutting wages would produce no real increase in demand for labour. It might produce a few more baby sitting or cleaning jobs but it isn't going to sell any more cars or produce anything beyond personal wealth.
Trying to compete with Asia is a bit of a dead loss, why would you want to compete with slavery, compete in the fields you can compete in, you used to have the hang of engineering, go for that and other jobs where the demand for labour generates jobs that naturally pay more than the minimum wage.
> Reality sets in, and that reality is regulation is needed
We have learned that lesson the hard way, have we not?
Theres pros and cons on both side of the issue. I believe you should be paid based on abilities, how you work with others and customers. That will weed out the poor workers so you don't need a minimum wage. The problem without one you will have some owners who underpay there people just because their cheap.
The post I've read here certainly lightens my heart as it sound like there are those here who have the voice of reason.
Suspect around the world there seem to be one aspect of life we can't get away from, it's called greed and with greed we seem to never be satisfied. If a product is selling well in the market place, let's raise the price so we can get even more for it.
how many here have actually run a business and try to meet payroll?
If you look at it carefully, govt rules seems to be the problem and not the solution.
Feel free to setup your own business and pay yourself what you want!
Working for corporation we would constantly be told how our sister/brother company is doing so much better with production then we were but when we finally began traveling to our sister companies and brother companies they informed us they were being told the same thing about us.
Secondly one of the big shots from headquarters came down to our plant and began giving of the riot act about how we are not performing in producting the volume need to be conpetitive in the in the market only he got so involved in his talk that I'm sure he didn't mean to say this,"Do You People Know We Only Have 85% of the marketplace!" he stopped his speak after that.
This has nothing to do with payroll had this coporation has always been profitable and I mean way back in time and is still profitable today.
The minimum wage is a plague on society.
If you aren't worth $7.25 to an employer, then you won't get hired.
It increases unemployment, and increases the cost of living.
"BUT THEN EVIL CAPITALISTS WILL PAY US LESS"
Yeah, but you'll actually HAVE a job.
And what a great job to have! You will die on the production line from starvation, because you won't be able to afford food or anything else...do you say these things just to p*** people off or are you really so shortsighted?
The interesting thing about all of those who want to drop the minimum wage is that they assume that it won't affect them or their earnings - see how keen they are on it when they are made to take a 25% wage cut!
it really wouldn't affect my wages:
I'm earning a graduate's degree in Education, and am earning licensure.
If someone isn't willing to pay me $40k+ a year, I'm not going to work for them.
BUT! Things WILL be cheaper: instead of buying "expensive technology item #15" to do the job that a human COULD be doing, it WILL be done by a human who's earning experience.
The same reason you need to prove you have good credit to a bank is the same reason why minimum wage needs to be abolished: proof of history.
But I'm happy to demand that others work for a tenth of that if it means my income is secure.
If others haven't been able to further their career to the point that they are NOT working for more than $2.00 / hour when they are 40 years old...
... then no minimum wage is going to solve their problems.
Sorry, but we don't live in the Garden of Eden.
Easy, work for restricted wages and no matter how hard you work, how long you work, the wages stay restricted.
Or are you trying to tell me that there are no employees in the US who only employ minimum wage workers, sacking them when it becomes incumbent upon them to pay more than the minimum wage?
What has the Garden of Eden got to do with anything? It is not my idea of a Garden of Eden to work at a job that doesn't allow even the most basic of life's nessecities.
why would your wage be restricted?
If you can get more money in another job... TA-DA! you get more money.
Your analysis is making the fallacious argument that you're stuck in ONE job, and that there is only ONE employer.
Perhaps this is why you revel the Government so much?
What does the Garden of Eden have to do with it? Why, my good sir, we don't live in a land where we can have anything we want without work - we must work and provide a service for our fellow man. If our work only benefits society by $2.00 an hour, but we have to be paid $7.00 an hour, then, unfortunately, instead of being hired, you'll be unemployed.
what kind of people will VOLUNTARILY work for $3.00 an hour?
Obviously entry level individuals with little to no training and experience. i.e., 13 year olds who want to prove they can handle a job.
If you're 30 and only making minimum wage, then.... .... ... it's really YOUR fault.
I feel bad for the people you teach.. There is always going to be the need for lower wage workers to clean toilets, pick food, factory workers etc. You want to pay these people 3/hr.
You have no understanding of different sociological situations and their effect on people. You have no idea about living in poverty or squalor which is it like to born into these situations. Or your so spoiled you don't get that there are jobs that are that menial but still necessary and you think those people should be abused for their lot in life.
You have no compassion sir. Hopefully you won't be teaching kindergartners. Maybe you should do educational sales or something.
Cleaning toilets is worth more than $3.00 an hour.
Good job on that. Many janitors are pulling $30k+ salaries which is MUCH more than minimum wage. Hence, they wouldn't be affected by minimum wage.
"There is a famous road that was built with good intentions", and you are asking me to continue its construction. Sorry, but I'm going to use my head instead of my heart.
Quit accusing me of hating children. This is nonsense and nothing more than an insult.
I simply know that life would be happier without minimum wages.
Tell that to all those on the minimum wage!
Oh sorry, forgot, those without the advantages you've inherited can go and whistle.
the only people who i know that are on the minimum wage are 16 year olds who want the money to get more experience.
OH, and... uhmm... quit insulting me?
In that case how do you feel qualified to speak about adults earning a minimum wage?
And how am I insulting you? By pointing out you have advantages not shared by everybody else?
You're implying I don't know what I'm talking about simply because I had a father who saved up money and spent it on me.
That's an insult to my ability to learn.
How on earth do you get from my assumption (later proved correct by yourself) that having advantages of birth affects your ability to learn?
The question of you not knowing what you are talking about is an entirely different question brought about about by statements such as claiming not to know anybody over the age of sixteen on a minimum wage. It is obvious from this thread that there are many over the age of sixteen who are on a minimum wage.
I suggest that if you are so sensitive that you take offence at a normal discourse you moderate your own language considerably as you appear to be somebody who can dish it out but can't take it.
I never say you hate children, Evan. I implied that it would seem your personality is not suited for education of kids, if that is where you were taking your degree.
And clearly you have no idea of the truth. Some Janitors like union protected janitors - yes they do have those- do get paid well. Some university janitors get paid well but no no and no they do not all make 30k a year. That is a flagrant exaggeration. The national average for a janitor is $9.24. That is assuming he doesn't have a degree from janitors school.
At 40 hours a week that is around 17,800. a year.
How about you make decisions about others lives based on facts instead of personal distortion.
You did insult me. Here are some quotes:
"Or your [sic.] so spoiled you don't get that there are jobs that are that menial but still necessary and you think those people should be abused for their lot in life." (awesome use of punctuation, by the way).
"You have no compassion sir. Hopefully you won't be teaching kindergartners. "
To me, that last one sounds pretty close to "you abuse children by misteaching them".
So, thanks for that.
"How about you make decisions about others [sic.] lives based on facts instead of personal distortion."
You're doing the same thing!! Wake up!!
"And clearly you have no idea of the truth."
I can make the same argument about you!!
This is your argument: "POVERTY EXISTS!! PAY THE POOR MORE AND PEOPLE WILL BE HAPPY!!! YOU DISAGREE?! YOU ARE CLEARLY EVIL!!!"
Give it a rest. I'm not going to be manipulated by your emotional sophistry. Freedom is NOT slavery.
"And clearly you have no idea of the truth. Some Janitors like union protected janitors - yes they do have those- do get paid well. Some university janitors get paid well but no no and no they do not all make 30k a year. That is a flagrant exaggeration. "
Actually, way to show your true colors of hypocrisy (you claimed I wasn't basing my arguments on facts... well...)!!
I did do some research, and it seems I was only off by about 15%! The average pay is ACTUALLY $25k. I would NOT call that a "flagrant exaggeration".
So... anyway... I have yet to be convinced by your emotionally laden argument.
sounds like I was saying? But I didn't say that right? And I told you what I meant which is your personality doesn't seem suited for teaching children.
And I do not say pay the poor more, I say do not do away with the minimum wage of 7.25 because there are a lot of jobs that need to be done that are menial and those people will be exploited. These are working people we are talking about not welfare recipients.
I go by everything you say exactly which is you say things about people you know nothing about.
I did research as well on payscale.com in MA, no degree, and Mass is higher paying. The average wage was 9.24. (which was the average of the range of salaries) and usually janitors do not have degrees. The lower end starts at minimum wage. you think that the few people making 25k should represent the ones making minimum wage.
Freedom? What to exploit people? That's what you fight for.
I do not need to convince you of anything. In fact I highly doubt you have the ability to see anything other than what you choose to see. Despite what I consider dangerous character defects on your part, I actually hope that karma doesn't catch up to you because I do care about others even if they don't deserve it.
You know what else this was a response to if your earning minimum wage at 30 its your own fault.
I am not 30 and I do not exactly earn minimum wage but close enough.
My point was not to say anyone should pay me more but that there are some people who are suffering the ill effects of the economy, we are looking for no handouts, but we don't need to be categorized and treated like trash by the likes of you. I actually have plenty of job history and experience but times are tough and you do what you do.
Maybe it's different in Japan.
"The median expected salary for a typical Janitor in the United States is $24,290. "
Evan - this is a quote from the web site YOU found. That's NOT 30K and it's not 25K. Looks to me like you were off by something closer to 20%.....
Evan G. R. have you ever visited the real world? Or are you in some office all day, catered to by pretty secretaries? You watch a lot of tv, don't you?
No, i watch not TV.
I don't work in an office either
So far you're 0 for 2... let's see if you strike out...
YES YOU DO! I LIVE in the real world!
You batted a perfect strike out! thanks for playing!
No, see; I was being as kind to you as possible. You should have just said, "yes, I'm a catered to rich boy with my head deluded by mass media."
The other options are much less kind or appealing.
Being against minimum wage doesn't make me rich.
I'm a grad school student who is paying his own way. I'm very grateful that my family was able to put me through Undergrad College.
I taught English in Japan for 4 years and saved up enough money to go to Grad school.
notice: I SAVED my money so that I could invest it to make MORE money in the future.
"If you're 30 and only making minimum wage, then.... .... ... it's really YOUR fault."
That's the ugly, bitter pill of truth. Don't expect many to swallow that one.
Yeah, i know, but it needs to be said.
You forget that in the current economical situation many people have had to take lesser paying jobs to survive.
Myself included. I used to make much more and then my company downsized and in order to survive I took a much less paying job. I also consistently try to do more than just work one job.
And you are the same type of people who s*** all over people who are on unemployment and won't take the job I am willing to take.
Frankly you have no compassion no empathy no understanding and your head is up you a** and I have had to spend the last year of my life humbling myself over and over again and I do not need you pompous narrow minded fools propagating lies about people you don't know and situations you will never understand. IF YOUR LUCKY.
And do not assume to categorize me. I do not own any expensive handbags or shoes or clothes. I cut coupons and always had even when I had money. And i did save but you know what after working for less you have to use the savings. REALITY dude. Give me a break.
You know nothing. You generalize about everyone based on a few bad apples in this life. You are the worst kind of people because you make decisions based on your negative feelings about things you know nothing about. You think it isn't emotional but it is because it isn't based on facts. Its like a form of bigotry.
You tell 'em Megs !! - half the people I know have gone from their smug position to garage attendant or whatever because their jobs dissapeared. Mostly only the a@@-lickers survive at the moment - I guess the shame of having to grovel at work to keep your job makes people nasty huh
"You forget that in the current economical situation many people have had to take lesser paying jobs to survive."
No, I didn't forget this at all. In fact, this is an argument AGAINST the minimum wage. If people have to accept a lower wage, then a MINIMUM wage would force them to unemployed.
You agree with me! Great!
"Myself included. I used to make much more and then my company downsized and in order to survive I took a much less paying job. I also consistently try to do more than just work one job."
(I have no idea how much money you make now, I'm going to use $30k) Aren't you glad that there was no minimum wages of $35k? If there were, you would've been fired! And you would have NO job AT ALL.
"And you are the same type of people who s*** all over people who are on unemployment and won't take the job I am willing to take."
Thanks for categorizing me, even though you ask for ME to not categorize YOU!! you're a hypocrite! Good job on that!
"Frankly you have no compassion no empathy no understanding and your head is up you a** and I have had to spend the last year of my life humbling myself over and over again and I do not need you pompous narrow minded fools propagating lies about people you don't know and situations you will never understand. IF YOUR LUCKY."
Good job on misspelling words, and viciously attack me! You'RE a credit to your species and argument! It's hilarious to read you attacking ME for having NO empathy, when YOU are standing there insulting ME!! BRILLIANT!!
You'RE a credit to Big Brother!
"And do not assume to categorize me."
Why not?! You did it to me about 5 times already! You hypocrite!
"I do not own any expensive handbags or shoes or clothes. I cut coupons and always had even when I had money. And i did save but you know what after working for less you have to use the savings."
Same here, buddy, same here! I'm glad to see that you ASSumed that I was a rich guy, when in fact I'm not very rich at all!
"REALITY dude. Give me a break."
No thanks. No break for you! You were very mean to me, and you didn't really make a good argument. All you did was assume I was a mean rich guy, when in fact ***I have NO CURRENT INCOME***!! I'm living off of money that I EARNED and that I SAVED.
"You know nothing. You generalize about everyone based on a few bad apples in this life. You are the worst kind of people [sic.] because you make decisions based on your negative feelings about things you know nothing about. You think it isn't emotional but it is because it isn't based on facts. Its like a form of bigotry."
None of this is true! I am merely pointing out that minimum wage is a plague on society, and you are accusing me of being a Satan-incarnate.
... EVEN THOUGH YOU AGREED WITH ME IN THE BEGINNING!!!
I'm reporting you, by the way. Your post was quite inflammatory and insulting.
Oh, and hypocritical.
You cannot seriously be reporting that post ! There is nothing in there that does not reflect reasonable opposition to your posts in these threads, in fact I thought she was being quite moderate given the naive drivel you put up that got her reaction.
Maybe it is time you took a break to calm down a bit.
That and another posts where an outright personal attack IMO. I reported them, too. I think some ban time will positively affect our new lefty - of course if moderators agree.
Hey, you know what you can ban me because you don't like what I say, that is fine. But I won't ban you even though you did the same and I am sure misha won't as well.
I am not a lefty either.
I will be sure to stay out of these forums where only some people can say what they want about others.
Based on your posts here you are, quite extreme lefty at that.
And no, I cannot ban you, only HP stuff can.
LOL. Only in America can someone be called an extreme lefty for defending the minimum wage. [facepalm]
True. Historically, both parties have supported the minimum wage although the Dems have been more supportive of adjusting it upward to reflect rising prices. There's no reason in a country as rich as ours that everyone should be paid a living wage.
Hey Ralph, aren't there exceptions to the minimum wage laws?
That's a good point. I'm not up to speed on the details of minimum wage regulations, but I think you're correct, e.g., for baby sitters, shoveling snow, and I think waiters. Of course independent contractors, artists, writers etc. are not covered by minimum wage laws.
You're damn right i didn't like what you said - you insulted me repeatedly for arguing against a minimum wage.
You insulted me in every one of your paragraphs. It was a pathetic attempt to win an argument.
For everyone else: notice how he takes the "high ground" and acts like WE'RE oppressing HIM -- he insulted me repeatedly and then acts like he's the good soldier!!!
Yes I can see it now, you poor abused thing, he actually had the audacity to reply to you in the way you reply to others. Get a life man! Your ego appears to be as fragile as your convoluted and childlike arguments abaout economics and politics.
Maybe you should bear in mind that this is a discussion forum and a good row is more fun than talking about jewellery and cup cakes and ipods.
I suggest that you and Megs sit in the naughty corner for a bit and then when you have apologised TO EACH OTHER you come back and play ?
China, I've never seen you respond to ANYONE without insulting them.
I'm done talking to you.
Being rude is my normal behaviour, some find it loveable
stop being so grouchy, get over the banned thread and get yourself banned in one click.
Poor Evan. It's all megs fault if she's working a minimum wage job, you say, without knowing anything about her life situation. How is that not an insult to her and a slap in her face?
You can sure dish it out, but you can't take it apparently. Not everyone has a mommy and daddy who pays for their college education.
I never once said she was working a minimum wage job because I didn't know.
If you actually bother to go back and look through the thread, you'll see, clearly that Megs insulted me first.
Just because you agree with him/her, you shouldn't condone such insulting language.
I find it hard to believe that a moderator would agree with you - especially in relation to the abuse that your buddy puts out himself.
Especially if the moderator happens to be on minimum wage
You seriously don't see that Megs was attacking me?
Look at his/her other post - "I will be sure to stay out of these forums where only some people can say what they want about others. "
THAT'S sanctimonious behavior.
I saw you attacking Megs and anyone else who's working at minimum wage, albeit indirectly, by saying that it's a person's own fault.
Yes, I do think Misha's being sanctimonious by walking in here to a thread that he wasn't even involved in and trying to get someone banned simply because he disagrees with them. He can take the moral high ground and get some chuckles at the same time - "look at the dirty lefty getting banned lol."
There are direct attacks, and there are indirect attacks. Both are attacks, but only direct attacks will get you banned on here.
People like you and Misha (and me) can insult people indirectly all they want. The difference is, when someone tried the same thing on you, Evan, you act all hurt and bent out of shape. Tone down your language, or take it like a man.
At least Misha takes a laughing attitude towards all of it. You should try the same.
Right - so...
when someone calls you someone who can't empathize, someone who hates poor people, etc. I'm supposed to just take it?
There are rules that we all implicitly agreed to by joining HubPages and posting on the forums.
In fact, there they are now "forum rules":
"Making Personal Attacks: debate and disagreements on points of substance are all right, but personal attacks, petty bickering, and thread hijacking will be dealt with swiftly"
I don't recall ever directly insulting anyone. Especially not to the degree that Megs hit me with.
It's strange that you would agree with Megs.
I'm done talking about this.
Evan you have said this a few times now, time do it and to stop digging.
Just because you appear to be heartless and naive to others in your posts does not mean that you are either heartless or naive in reality - and when people attack your posts they are not in reality attacking you.
We all get this all the time, and it is not going to change if you chanmpion your extreme cause loudly and continuously as you do, it is not going to change for me in my constant ridiculing of the barmy army of the god bothering bigot section of fundamentalism.
The rules here seem to be arbitrarily enforced. The hard and fast rule, as I seem to understand it, is if you directly insult another person, as in "you are a so and so" then you'll get banned, but pretty much anything else goes.
I think you did ok actually, you tried to keep your arguments factual until you got pissed about the drubbing you were getting.
But really, attacking the minimum wage is opening yourself up to attack. If you've ever lived any appreciable amount of time on or close to minimum wage, you would probably understand why your beliefs draw so much ire.
Honestly, I was more ticked off at Misha than you. You caught some of the annoyance, which was carried over from another thread in which he called me ignorant or something (indirectly of course).
I can see how you would feel very attacked in this thread. I don't think anyone committed a bannable offense. You, yourself technically directly attacked meg when you said "you're a hypocrite."
Anyway, all I'm saying is, chill.
When you were in school I bet you were the one who took pleasure tattling to the teacher on your fellow students.
ARE YOU SERIOUS?!
let me quote what he wrote to me:
"Frankly you have no compassion no empathy no understanding and your head is up you a** and I have had to spend the last year of my life humbling myself over and over again and I do not need you pompous narrow minded fools propagating lies about people you don't know and situations you will never understand. IF YOUR LUCKY.""
You find NO insults in that paragraph?! Really?!
He even misspelled "you're"!!
When did I say you were rich?
When did I say I want more money?
I was fired dude what are you talking about? After I was promoted so it wasn't my work ability. I have tons of great references as well so I know I did well at my job.
And I was categorizing your statements about people who are like me. I say you know nothing and I mean about the people you are talking about.
How can you make a general statement about everyone who is 30 making minimum wage?? And I didn't think spelling was too much of an issue because we are in a forum. I didn't say you were Satan but you are lacking compassion and empathy and understanding. I will not take that back.
I am not making an assumption I am going by what you say about people like me who have really had to humble ourselves due to the economic climate which wasn't caused by minimum wage. I was responding to you. I was characterizing your comments.
And it isn't nice to say things about people you do not know who have been in a such a situation. And how can you say that minimum wage would fix that when other countries show that to be false.
Menial is a factory worker who assembles your computer or so Foxconn thinks. Do you think they deserve such poor wages when they work all day? Where is the evidence that it is better without minimum wage?
"I do not own any expensive handbags or shoes or clothes. I cut coupons and always had even when I had money. And i did save but you know what after working for less you have to use the savings."
I was talking about my buying habits not yours? What are you talking about?
"No, I didn't forget this at all. In fact, this is an argument AGAINST the minimum wage. If people have to accept a lower wage, then a MINIMUM wage would force them to unemployed."
What? No sense. Example please.
You yell at me for things I did not say about you. But you did say If I make minimum wage and I am near 30 it is my own fault.
Here's your quote:
"Frankly you have no compassion no empathy no understanding and your head is up you a** and I have had to spend the last year of my life humbling myself over and over again and I do not need you pompous narrow minded fools propagating lies about people you don't know and situations you will never understand. IF YOUR LUCKY.""
IF you can't see why i'm mad at you, then you apparently fail to understand English.
No more inflammatory and insulting than many of yours, should I report you?
As for hypocritical!!
On top of the other disagreements with your stance above - if Capitalism as it operates at the moment is the be all and end all - how come there are so few jobs, how come the wealth gap in teh US and most western countries is constantly increasing in tune with their depressing of the economy - how come China are making an extra 10% jobs per annum - how come what could be a very reasonable stance for much less government becomes a raving looney rant about NO government instead.
I think you fail to look at the lessons of the past - and when you do glance over your shoulder you cherry pick the bits of info that might support your case.
we don't practice "capitalism" we practice "almost socialism"
did you notice how about 50% of your income goes to the government through taxes?
Federal income tax + state income tax + sales tax + gasoline tax + you-name-it tax + when you die you owe money to the state for some reason tax = ~50% of your income.
Also: the argument about "the wealth gap" is... less than intelligent.... The poorest of the poor are able to live off of the TRASH of the wealthiest.
Think about that: in our world today, the people SO wealthy that they can actually LIVE off of completely UNWANTED items. Translation: if you didn't want to work AT ALL, you could live for probably 40 more years without doing ANYTHING productive for society. It might not be a good living, but it's about equal to what some people with jobs about 200 years ago could live.
The poorest of the poor today are richer than the majority of the people 300 years ago.
The rich are rich because they invested money and successfully predicted the future constantly. In doing so, they made life better for billions of people.
ps- I completely ignored your "raving looney rant" and "failure to look at the lessons of the past" arguments.
Thanks for insulting me! That was charming!
No, the rich are rich because they gambled with our money and struck lucky.
They did not constantly successfully predict the future, remember depression?
They have been very successful though at pulling the wool over the eyes of otherwise intelligent people.
Ooooo you just entered the realm of the Austrian Business Cycle Theory!!!
Are you ready?! ARE YOU READY?!?!?!
On a day to day basis, entrepreneurs make countless predictions about the future. Those that are incorrect get punished, and those that are correct are rewarded. Thus there is a natural method to keep those that are good at predicting on top.
But, in a depression, suddenly ALL of the entrepreneurs make the SAME mistakes at ONCE. How is this possible? Every single person who made their career at being successful at making predictions SUDDENLY make the exact mistake as everyone else?!
There's a reason for this. And that reason is known as "the interest rate".
How much is a promise for a dollar in one year worth to you? Would you be willing to give someone 90 cents today for a dollar in a year? 85? 75? Whatever the price, this is "the interest rate".
However, this completely natural phenomenon of borrowing money is distorted profusely by monopoly institutes called "central banks". For example, right now, key interest rates are LITERALLY at 0%: in order to get a dollar next today, it costs you nothing in the future.
These interest rates are (disgustingly) set by (in the US) the Federal Reserve. How does the Fed change the interest rates? By giving money to lending institutions (banks). In order for someone to borrow money for free, there needs to be enough money to be lent for free!
This is why the money supply in the US has doubled in the last 3 years, and Quintupled in the last 15 or so. There is SO much money being created that banks are able to "lend" money at NO cost to anyone.
What happens when such lunacy exists?
Well, sure, you have a lot of money... but so does everyone else! People begin to bid for resources - prices in sectors like "steel production and mining" skyrocket... but not for long.
Eventually, reality sets in: there is only enough steel for so many buildings. But because entrepreneurs thought they had more "wealth" (measured in dollars), they thought they could start building bigger and bigger buildings. If you look around the world today, this is indeed what happened: numerous towers and skyscrapers around the world are not only vacant, but are completely unfinished.
Wake up: the entire world's economy is in the hands of but a few nitwits at the Federal Reserve.
Those at the Fed don't agree (and were likely never taught) this thinking because it didn't come from the mouth of their God, John Maynard Keynes (in fact, he's so popular, my spell check recognized EVERY one of his 3 names).
Here's a fun video explaining the Austrian theory:
"Prepared to be schooled in my Austrian Perspective."
I believe it was you using chaos theory to illustrate a point, if it wasn't forgive me but chaos theory is what drives all your sainted masters of money.
For Austrian Business Cycle Theory read Chaos Theory and if you want something a bit more solid may I recommend The Drunkard's Walk by Leonard Mlodinow.
Chaos Theory, the BOOK, does not explain the Austrian Business Cycle Theory.... so... I'm going to have to accuse you of not having read the book.
I haven't read "The Drunkard's Walk" but I just found a video that I'll watch.
PS - my "sainted masters of money" are the people in an economy. YOU decide what entrepreneurs will build, YOU choose where to invest YOUR money.
Evan, you maybe came from a silver spoon, or never struggled in life, but anything less than current minimum wages is not worth having.
Also, by your theory of letting the market decided, if employers lowered minimum wage, it would lower everything along a sliding scale, and if wages fell across the board, then spending would follow and then prices would have to eventually drop, thus those companies would still not make any more profit, and would still opt to buy machines versus people when they could.
if nothing lower than the current minimum wage is worth having, then why would people agree to work for less than minimum wage?
Obviously, because it IS worth having to them. Don't legislate your own views onto others.
Right, because not starving to death is worth whatever it takes. Aside from the abhorrent amorality of your statement, frankly if you cut wages for enough people who are already living on the edge you'll have another French Revolution on your hands.
Is that a call for violence?
Tone down the VITRIOL and RHETORIC.
Hey, I thought you were in favor of death threats against your political opponents?
I never said I was for death threats against my political opponents.
You fabricated that.
I didn't fabricate it, I inferred it from the context of our conversation:
http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/1496 … threat.jpg
You stated that you have no problem with people receiving death threats after they are named on Glenn Beck's show.
There was a time when this country had no minimum wage. How did that go?
Horrible. It lead to unions. They served a purpose and then were overcome by greed.
You clearly don't read a lot of history with your comics.
Yes, things were so much better for working people before all those pesky labor laws. Stupid unions.
without those jobs, the families would've starved.
Yes, because the father wasn't being paid a living wage for the work he was doing. Thus....
drum roll, wait for it.....
minimum wage laws.
yes yes yes, without government we'd all be forced into trash compactors for the benefit of some guy with a monocle.
That is pretty much what happened in WW1 - if you read it up - almost exactly what the general did when he marched 20,000 men into the German guns - to see where they were placed so that he could refine his battle plan.
But then those guys were only there because wages were so low they could not support their families - and the war also about getting rid of the surplus labour that were talking at that time about what a good idea the Russian revolution was.
The Russian revolution caused mainly because the mass of people were earning less than would support a family.
History is a great teacher.
its better to have low wages than no wages.
Both of those examples said, basically, this:
"The people gave the government control of labor... and things went horribly. THUS! WE need to give our government MORE control over labor to make things less horrible!"
You can't make this stuff up!
I mean wasn't it Adam Smith (the wealth of nations) that said, let each man think of his own wealth and that will result in the collective wealth of a nation? That's history too.
The thing that is dumb, is you are seeing a phenomenon of jobs leaving the US because of costs and you don't do anything about it. The thing is, it is a tricky thing to abolish minimum wage because a person that was getting 1.00 for babysitting will suddenly be vulnerable to get.50 when she's used to 1.00.
Tricky tricky. it's a conundrum. I think it's not simple but something has to be done to make it affordable for more people to hire help.
it will not be an easy transition if you do that. but its better to do something other than watch americans get poorer and poorer.
If someone wants you to babysit for 4 hours, but they are only going to pay you 2 dollars for your work...
... then find a different job!
In the time of WW1 business WAS the government - rich women had just been allowed to vote. You keep avoiding the eyes of the hungry adults and kids on the production lines by glib talking, and your ideas if put into action would put you in that same position faster than you can come up with a quick quip.
I understand the need for caution. But if you're there in the front lines. You see business closing because they cannot compete with asian prices, you'll see. The Americans cannot compete with asian prices. They can't. Why, american made is expensive. And if you want a bag that is not Louie Vuitton, you will buy 20 faster than you'll by 80. It's a fact. You're going to ignore the chinese accent. You want to be profitable in your business. And you can't sell a 160 dollar bag in these times of hardship. You'll be able to sell a 40 dollar bag. We are talking about the same kind of bags.
Do you know how many american start ups in the last Accessories the Show did not come back? They are losing business to asia. Why? Asia has become competitive with quality. Americans brought their machines to asia. But the labor prices are still very very low. Build them here in America. Let companies offer and if there are takers, let them take it.
Market forces should dictate salaries. The government should do something else to improve lifestyles. It is better to offer more food stamps at a certain salary than to limit the employers ability to hire people.
Once again, your argument is "life sucked when government controlled the economy, thus we should let the government control the economy more".
It's not really making sense.
The sense is that money rules - and if you have no representation of the people then those with the money rule you - and they are then your government. Which is what has happened in the US.
You either have a government that you have some control over - or you go back to a situation comparable to the Barons of history. Then they tell you what you will or will not earn, whether you live or die.
This is so evil, it's appalling.
Let's do away with the minimum wage so papa's wages can be slashed, AND, let's abolish child labor laws so kids can be exploited.
Evan, there are reasons why people react to your opinions - so negatively.
Right right right... sorry, let me switch dogmas:
"IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH"
"If we force companies to pay more money to their laborers than the laborer is worth, then we'll all be millionaires!"
"WAR IS PEACE"
"Letting people make decisions for themselves leads to evil!"
"Man is inherently evil!"
"FREEDOM IS SLAVERY"
If we force companies to pay more money to their laborers than the laborer is worth, then we'll all be millionaires!
Letting people make decisions for themselves leads to evil!
Man is inherently evil!
"Minimum wage is good because, clearly, making sandwiches at a restaurant should be worth a salary to feed, cloth, house, and transport, educate through a master's degree, an entire family of four!"
"Government creates wealth!!"
ugh... i feel so dirty...
Not dirty, just ignorant of history and the lessons that can easily be learned by a bit of reading.
Wow. So it's ok to pay daddy .50 an hour because Junior can also work for .25 an hour and the family will be able to keep themselves alive to work another day.
Jesus Christ Evan. You need to stop digging yourself deeper.
No Evan, but people are definitely the following: greedy and exploitative. And this applies to your great "Captains of Industry" and the average laborer and to me and you. It's just what we are - it's human. We look to exploit a weakness in our fellow man. If someone says, "Hey Evan, I'll cut your grass for $5.00" you will snap that up in a heartbeat even though you realize it's about a $15-$20 job. And you won't care about what is "fare" - I might not either. And by the same token, the guy offering to cut your grass will size you up and ask himself if you are stupid enough to pay $35. And he won't care if he is breaking one off in you. You know, supply and demand, etc. You need some type of minimum as a check and balance because the guy with the cash ALWAYS has the upper hand in the contract; you are already in posession of what the guy selling his service is looking for - the cash. And that's a basic tenant of contract law. I didn't event this idea.
There is a reason why the Birchers, your idealogical idols, kind of faded from history Evan. Now we call them Libertarians. But this philosophy, this movement only tends to gain traction when things go wrong in the economy. Once this Recession is over, trust me, the Libertarians and the Tea Partiers will be an interesting footnote in history - and that's about it.
I mean, do you guys know where the jobs went--to china where labor is cheap. It is just in the meantime. You need to stimulate businesses first. The US is bleeding jobs to asia.
You need to respond to the times. How many people would like to have a job any job. How many people need support and extra help but can't afford help. May those two meet and more people will eat.
In Asia, China for sure, those cheap jobs are in a different setting. Even the people who collect plastic bottles here can earn enough to eat and live at some level. A cheap job can support a family if the surounding economic environment is also cheap. Three excellent meals a day cost ME around $3 in a restaurant. And low paid don't pay tax, or house or poll tax - and low paid is under 700 dollars per month !
In the US, most western countries, low pay means something else and is a different issue as the economic environment is different. Little cheap food, expensive accomodation and services. It also seems to attract negative attention from police and authorities in general.
market forces. If you reduce pay, you eventually reduce cost of living. If nobody could buy your food, your charge less for it. You reduce cost of help, you reduce cost of food.
The only way to solve the job market problem is to let people get any job they can get and employers to offer jobs for the actual value it generates.
I guess that would be one way for the US to overcome its 20 years of net imports and constructed wars - by bringing back sweatshops and child labour.
This would provide more jobs to construct and maintain the prisons to put those who object to this kind of near-slavery. Why not go all out and import a load of free workers from Africa, after all they are making a mess of their economies too.
Or of course you could legislate to stop the banks and corporations overcharging and forcing the prices up, then maybe the prices would drop to realistic prices and then maybe wages would naturally reduce.
well if you go to that extreme you can muster some kind of weight to your argument. But who ever said anything about child labor? People need jobs. Nobody could afford to pay. Let me make an offer, if you take it, you take it. If you don't, I have to increase my offer. If you take it for two days and leave me, that's my problem. Market forces does not mean child labor. It only means market forces will stabilize the demand and supply.
Your argument is like this:
me: You need to cut down on food.
you: fine, let's all starve.
Cut down is not starve. Allowing market forces to reshape the economy is not bring back slavery and child labor. Child labor and slavery isn't even in the picture here. it's just why should I pay someone 10 dollars per hour when the value of his job is 5?
Maybe because you are looking at the economic situation as static, you change one thing and the rest stays the same - but everything has consequences - and the temporary changes that might be beneficial are outweighed by the consequences that would surely result from it.
It is no accident that minimum wage is a part of the welfare system. It is necessary to create the cut-of line for various benfits. If you lose the minimum you must by default also lose control of the benefit system - a regressive step in the face of civilization I would say.
Service is overpriced in America. People do everything themselves making them less productive. You can have a minimum wage benefit, without imposing a minimum wage imposition on employers.
For instance, if you are getting this much from your employer, you will get this benefit. But is your employer allowed to offer this much? In this economy, yes. The market forces will compel an employer to hire competitively. if I want this nanny, I'll pay her what she's worth. If I want this secretary with her qualifications, I will pay her what she's worth to me. But if I just need someone to sweep the floor and dust the cabinet. My dear I'm not paying a hundred a day for that (which I do, only here in america). I'll just do it myself and leave my writing to bite the dust.
I am sorry that your cleaner costs you so much, in the UK the last time I was employing, low paid jobs attracted low levels of benfit to balance the earnings back to the minimum wage. It wasn't working so well, but it was a step toward some compromise in the situation.
Yeah well, I'm not even suffering that much. It's working people who need someone to watch their ailing mums and take care of them while they work so they can have money to pay for the medicines of their ailing mums.
Or, schools who have to cut down on assistant teachers because the PTA can't pay for them.
It's grad students selling jewelry and bags at trade shows because they can't find a desk job in a related field.
All these things are weird. They don't make sense to me.
America needs to rethink their labor laws because its hurting americans.
I love that you're arguing that we aren't looking at the consequences of minimum wages... when we're clearly arguing that minimum wage leads to unemployment.
You are ignoring the control the banks and corporations have over the economy - the modern barons who pretty much run US life unchallenged.
By the way - nice to see you back in full swing - and with your fact based arguments with some meat in them. It doesn't make you right, but it IS a pleasure to argue with
Why thank you China man. It's a pleasure to disagree with you too.
I actually don't know if I'm right only that I have had the same discussions with countless new yorkers who wish they could hire help but could not afford it. Then I talk to my nanny and she has friends who are finding it harder and harder to find jobs. Women with PhDs are getting back to homes to care for their children because they cannot afford to pay help. These are think tanks doing cleaning and cooking while their children are in school. At best, my argument is based on actual observations.
So value of product minus cost of creating product equals profit? Right? Cost of creating product is partly labor costs so if labor costs are lower value of product can be lower? Right?
Cost of creating product includes all payroll costs which is both labor costs AND management/CEO costs. The problem isn't that NO ONE is making money, the problem is that money made by labor has been flat for 30 years while executive pay has risen dramatically.
Reducing worker pay won't lower cost of goods it will just increase even more the disparity of pay between rich and poor. We haven't been able to afford stuff for awhile. They didn't lower prices, they just invented credit cards.
if people are paying for overpriced goods, its because they can afford overpriced goods. If they can't, they won't buy. SO a company could only overcharge so much. but it can't last if no one thinks they're worth it.
Sure, at some point, but the point of the middle class is that people have money and time to devote to things other than necessities. You can squeeze that out of people and they will still buy things they need but won't have money for extras. And then all of a sudden you have people who have no cushion and it doesn't take much to put them in financial trouble (e.g. all the homes in foreclosure or danger of being so).
But that wasn't really my point. Your argument was that there are two variables (labor and price of goods) directly tied to one another - lower one and you lower the other. My point was to say there is a third variable (and probably more) that can also be manipulated so that you could raise the wages paid to labor without changing the price of goods.
I don't believe the value placed on employees is decided by the market and so is what it has to be. I think it is chosen. We have chosen to have CEOs make 400 times the average employee. No other nation has chosen anything close to that.
it was market forces that created overpriced CEOs
I guess that statement has to be true. But there isn't one market in the world or one market through all time. America didn't always have overpriced CEOs nor do other nations. So, what are the specific differences between markets that makes that so? And I suppose it depends what you believe, but I personally don't think the market decided on its own which one to be. So who did?
But then, I believe the market is a tool we can (and should) use to achieve a purpose and that may just be an unresolvable fundamental difference between us.
there is no chaos in a timescale, just transitions. if the market has changed, we should respond. not insist on old ways that only delay the inevitable. We could either lead it or it will lead us.
Exactly! Raise minimum wage for the poor and LOWER maximum wage for the rich. HA.
this is not adam smith. this is socialism. the market dictates. not the government.
Adam Smith blythely uses phrases such as negative growth which everyone seems to accept - but for this idea to even exist means that the baseline is an ever increasing rise. maybe it is time to throw that book away and get a new one that bases its theories on balance rather than infinate growth. There is something radically wrong with western economics as we have been in crisis for over 40 years now, would be 70 years without the 2nd World war. Maybe dumping the Adam Smiths might be a good place to start.
This isn't either. If you want the market to dictate you have to not only remove government intrusion but also corporate coercion. And according to Smith, anyway, preventing corporate coercion IS a proper and necessary role for the government. My lowering maximum wage was mostly in jest - it might reset the game, it wouldn't fix the problem.
Isn't it time to abolish the crazy max. wages of Suits in the financial and corporate workplace. I think 90 and 100 plus millon dollar bonuses is obscene on top of a multi millon dollar salary. Are we ready to consider lowering wages on the bottom and not think about the top. Those suits are protected by the (redistribution act) and the underpaid can hope cost go down when their wages is lowered.(tricle down act) The American dream is over and it's becoming a nightmare for the working class.
Yep. We should definitely dump minimum wage. I mean, forget poor people. Pfft. You mean people struggling to make a living? Hey here's an idea. Get a real job! I mean, mothers in the ghetto working two jobs just to feed their kids? Hey. Survival isn't a right. It's a privilege. So if you aren't born white or with financial opportunities, that's your problem. Can't survive on your own? Nope. Not my problem. What, did you think we lived in a "society"?
You libertarians. What will you think of next?
You fail to see the point!
We humans inherently are born lazy, physically and mentally!
Show me one govt program that have lifted people out of poverty?
Some schmuck invested his or her money at great risk of losing it all if the business fails and now you come dictating how the dollars are paid!
Look at cities with so called RENT LAWS? Total failure!
If we want a Swedish type of economy, then so be it, but this is pure capitalism.
Big corporate multinationals would love to do this, abolish minimal wage protections.
But who would this benefit, the worker? I don't think so!
How much money does a person need 1 Billion, 20, more?
Hoard money for the sake of hoarding money.
If all business people focus on creating 'value' instead of finding new and innovative ways to making a quick and easy buck.
The minimum wage issue wouldn't be worth mentioning!
I give you Google as a perfect example, value first, price second!
I think we should force EVIL COMPANIES to pay us all $8,000,000,000,000,000 every SECOND!!!!
then we'll all be rich!!! And then when we spend the money, the businesses will be even RICHER!! then they can pay us more!!
YEAH!!! ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
I think it would be good if the minimum wage were raised to a level that made tipping unnecessary in bars and restaurants.
The minimum wage is just that - a minimum. It doesn't apply to most businesses because they must pay more than this minimum to get the type of employees they need.
In my years as an employer I cannot recall ever paying minimum wage to anyone. It seems like more of the "let someone else make the sacrifices" theory and it isn't very relevant to our economic woes.
it's nothing more than a political tool to make yourself look nice...
... but unfortunately it has real consequences: unemployment.
For the US to extricate itself from this economic mess, it will take a huge realignment of the whole economic structure and governmental structure. The minimum wage is way down the list as far as being something that will make a real difference. Try...
Balance of Trade
Addressing these isn't as easy as tinkering with the min. wage but they will sink us if not fixed - and this means everyone will have to make sacrifices - not just laborers, not just management - EVERYONE!
Well yeah, we could all work for $2.10 an hour and have close to 100% employment. Then let me guess, the magic hand of the market would kick in and prices would plummet to match wages, right? Washing machines for $50.00! Cool! Real estate prices would tumble in lock-step, the populace would have no "extra money" to dump into corporate America (401 K's, etc.) Sound familar Mr Wizard? Wow.. yeah I agree - lowering the minimum wage or eliminating would be a real "BOOM" to corporate American - for about 4 months then the economy would tumble. Then you and your Bircher buds could start you own little fiefdom... Dude.. where do you get your logic?
It's a good starting point, lol. I don't think it should be abloished if there is anything else that can be done to make sure that people who are qualified and deserve higher pay get it, but if a child is starting out there is no reason not to pay them minimum wage. If they have children and live on their own than there should be some exceptions, however.
Yes - like all those people you sub-class due to education or IQ or misfortune - Really glad I contributed all that money over the years for GOVERNMENT controlled education so that smart-ass 'I got a good job' smarmy pis ants could crow ! Bring on the next depression so they can crow in the soup queue.
They work for it. You could have but I can tell you didn't. Dont blame the high classes for that. Blame Jimmy Carter for connecting Government to school.
You clearly can't tell anything - I have been an employer pretty much all my working life and I know full well that if anyone finds paying minimum wage a hardship they are not running their business right, but most pay minimum wage to support their own inflated smug lifestyle.
I can't tell anything...? lol. Most businesses do not pay minimum wage. You must be a liberal. The problem with people who think like you is this. If you run a business you do not have to pay minimum wage to your employees. It does not affect you at all. If something doesn't affect you, leave it alone. It's great for kids on their first job who do not need a bankroll but do need a lesson in appreciating the money they get. I'm sure in your perfect world everyone would get the same amount to be equal. This country is beautiful because you can work your way to the top and if you do, you deserve to be that "i got a good job" person you spoke of earlier. I highly doubt you have ran anything because I can tell you are very young. Grow up. You probably are receiving minimum wage now and thats why your so hard on the subject.
"you forget the past to easy".....
maybe you should take your own advice....
You seem to be able to tell a whole lot with your narrow perspective and blinkers on, you also seem to like pouting your opinion - but you are extremely short on facts.
Instead of ignorant abuse you should try an argument, otherwise you just come over as a mindless fool.
where are your facts? this was an opinion and you jumped all over me. you need medication man, seriously, lol. Have a good one.
"You seem to be able to tell a whole lot with your narrow perspective and blinkers on, you also seem to like pouting your opinion - but you are extremely short on facts."
.... said the man who is doing the exact same thing...
Ii think you have enough to do defending your extreme and naive views as it is without getting involved in answering for others.
And I love your accusation of emotionally laden . . after your emotionally laden reply to some guy above
For the people who aren't going to bother looking up the quote, here is what provoked my "emotionally laden reply". Megs wrote this to me:
"Frankly you have no compassion no empathy no understanding and your head is up you a** and I have had to spend the last year of my life humbling myself over and over again and I do not need you pompous narrow minded fools propagating lies about people you don't know and situations you will never understand. IF YOUR LUCKY.""
So... g'head and make your own conclusions.
I confess to feeling ambivalent about the minimum wage. I imagine that any country which has a minimum wage also has a welfare state, which means that abolishing MW won't necessarily create more jobs as some people here say it would. Or put it another way, it might create job vacancies, but that doesn't mean those vacancies will be filled. (There's a large number of people out there who faced with a choice between working 100 hour weeks for £3.00 per hour* and going on the dole would definitely opt for the dole.)
*Minimum wage in the UK is currently just under £6 per hour.
In province Ontario, Canada where I live, minimum wage is $10.25, though people who work at bars could get less (supposedly they get tips)pay. Other provinces - BC for example have $8 minimum wage. I work for minimun wage. I am happy I have it. I t is not enough for living, I have to have a second one, that pays more than min but it is part time.
Yes, I agree, it is my fault. I raised kids, I helped my husband with his business, I helped everybody but myself. Now I am paying for my "shortsightedness" for my whatever you call it. I f we did not have minimum requirements, many people would have paid less - much less.
I'm not the one on here saying "it's your fault if you earn minimum wage". I'm just pointing out that there are other, hidden factors at work (like the existence of a welfare state) which mean that the overall picture isn't as simple as some people make it out to be. And that oversimplification is practised by people at both ends of the political spectrum.
FIRST OFF - if this was mentioned in another post - SORRY - too many posts to read all of them!
From what I have seen and remember
1 - minimum wage has done nothing but make the rich even richer!
2 - it has forced our labor out of reach of competitive global manufacturing.
now our government is trying to reduce our income value by allowing illegals to work here at a deflated wage to force our prosperity levels down toward a more global wage so we will one day be able to compete with the emerging markets and will have more work for the socialized worker's
If the minimum wage has done nothing but make the rich even richer, why aren't more rich in favour of the minimum wage?
Why has it forced your labour out of reach of competitive global manufacturing? It hasn't in the UK.
I haven't heard the rich speak out one way or the other...
it sounds more like you're taking an absence of evidence as evidence in one direction instead of the other.
almost like Bush before the Iraq war...
why aren't more rich in favour of the minimum wage?
that is because your people are taxed more.
up to $34,000.00 USD is taxed at 15%
$34,000.00 USD = 21,402.9 GBP which is taxed there at basic rate of 20%
51,870.6 GBP is taxed there at 40%
51,870.6 GBP = 82,400 USD.which is taxed at 25% here.
Here is another fact:
in 2008 the median income in the USA was $52,029.00
the median income in G.B. was 55484. GBP (equal to $88,140.00 USD)
which means 40% of your wage is gone before you see it!
and you people are at a median income which is nearly 30% higher than the USA!
IF you want to play with the numbers too - this is my source for those numbers
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/lif … _rates.htm
I'm struggling to understand your argument here and totally fail to understand its bearing on the minimum wage.
I will point out though that nobody pays 40% on their whole income, that 40% rate applies to income over £37,401 or $59,607. The income tax paid on £37,400 is at 20%.
WOW! You said: I will point out though that nobody pays 40% on their whole income
that's impressive ...
The point I was trying to make is this - rich people do not seem to (in general) want to be singled out for more wages ...
In order to cover more wages one has to raise the cost of everything past that increase ...
Consider this ... how much stuff is sold globally which is made in the U.K.?
Honestly - I doubt that I own even one single item made in the U.K.
(of course - if I could - I would own an English Sports Car)
Basically - your countries higher wages look as though they have squeezed you out of a global market
like this comment at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/pers … ation.html
Experts fear that a period of 'stagflation’ - high inflation and stagnant growth - could see Britain wave goodbye to its economic recovery.
... sure the powers that be are focusing on the fact that poorer countries are spending the larger part of their income on food and utilities - however - they are also not buying things because they don't have enough revenue to afford things made by higher waged production
... unless it is subsidized by someones tax generated revenue.
You are confusing political issues with economic, we have been blessed recently with a government who has seen the way out of global recession by cutting back on expenditure.
We are actually exporting very well at the moment, many of our industries are showing huge increases in exports. Land Rover for example have seen an increase in exports of around 15%, and that's with a minimum wage! The thing is that if you want something like a Land Rover, there is no competition from China.
Likewise, many specialist engineering tasks can not be fulfilled by China.
There is no evidence that wages have squeezed us out of global markets.
Where UK exports have really suffered, the minimum wage just isn't a factor as the minimum wage plays little or no part in international banking and international banking is where we have been really caned over the past few years. Not just in the US have banks had to be bailed ot with the taxpayers money.
You make a good point about taxes in the UK. What you may not be aware of is that health care which you have through the NHS, I believe, costs me with an advanced degree and many years of experience in my field 17% of my gross income per year and it is going up steadily. If you leave your job or get sacked, you still have your national health care to fall back on - I don't. So while my taxes may be 20% of income, I am actually paying out a hell of lot more and getting less. I may not be paying 40% to the government, but I am being HEAVILY "taxed" by private health insurance nonetheless.
Actually, the basic rate of tax in the UK is 20%,you have to be earning a fair bit to be paying 40%.
The first c£34,000 is taxed at 20% so in reality nobody pays 40% tax.
In the US you pay dearly for your freedom from taxes.
You're right John. See the notion in the US is that it's a real bad thing to pay taxes to your government, but a very good thing to take it in the rear by private enterprise running what amounts to a monopoly. And the argument is, ready for this - "choice."
Now you see what making a retarded suggestion like that gets you.
most of the people on this thread agree with sanity, and that is that every single provision workers HAVE was fought for like a bitch by people standing, starving in the freezing cold of the 1930's!!! IF we abolished the minimum wage, you better have some hoover stlyee camps waiting, because people are just holding on as it is!! grow a heart, it will lead to you being able to grow a brain and then a real concience!
there are some states that don't have a minimum wage law and some that pay below the Federal law.maybe move to these states to start a business;
Tennessee,Alabama,Mississippi,South Carolina and Louisiana do not have minimum wages laws
here's a link to view each states minimum wage laws
I always find it incredulous that those that wish to abolish the minimum wage know that it won't apply to themselves...
They don't think it will apply to themselves you mean, I know a good few people who thought they were safe in their jobs who saw the other side of that coin for themselves. The last two were University Associate Deans who went from in excess of 70,000 GBP to retired overnight recently. I wouldn't want to wish that situation on anyone, but then a few people here . . .
Hard times, they can happen to anyone.
ive known whats its like to want a home while living for ,months in a trailer....
the minimum wage was ignored as a valid issue in congress while the republicans were in charge. the only recent increase was in 2007.
96 was the last one before that. in that time congress voted itself several pay raises!! PIGS!
This post is obviously written by someone who has never had to worry about where their next meal is coming from or how they are going to pay the rent. At the moment the poor are getting poorer in every country, whilst the richest are getting richer. Whilst I understand that this seems fair to the rich and the natural order of things, to the poor the situation is becoming unbearable. The cost of food, electricity, water, rents, mortages are going through the roof, whilst wages are being reduced, as are welfare benefits, and provision for the sick and elderly. And the bankers, who started this situation in the first place are still receiving their £9 million bonuses. It makes me sick and angry. So your suggestion to end the minimum wage is really adding insult to injury. Is turning the West into one great big sweatshop really what you want. Yes, this would be great for the employers, but employees also have the right to live in a dignified way, without the fear of losing their homes or not having enough to pay the bills after a hard week's work. I sometimes wonder if this economic situation has been caused by the rich as an excuse to punish the poor by reducing their income and taking their homes away from them. So no, the minimum wage, little as it is should stay in a civilised country. In the UK cabinet, all MPs are super rich and come from an aristocratic background. There is no one who comes from a workng class background. Democracy is coming to an end, and the fact that no one is doing anything to prevent this means the rich are having it all their own way. I long for the revolutions to come, but know that they won't. Instead, people ask such stupid questions such as whether the minimum wage should end. Shows the way the world is going, and I for one hate it.
Oh, you have no idea what hardship means! My story will make you cry for joy. you speak as if the freedom to setup your own business is taking from you.
Create your own business and try to meet payroll. I know the rich have certain advantages, but creating a minimum wage law will not affect them one bit.
Remember this are private businesses we are talking about here. Try risking your capital against all odds and then have to deal with crazy rules made by politicians who specialize in spending us to death.
With all the minimum wage increases, poverty rate still goes up
With all the free social welfare money given out, poverty rate still goes up
Can you say not enough is done in regards to social spending?
Hey be careful you might be banned for saying something like that. Don't act like a lefty or anything.
LOL We finally got a company to LMC and MM. Are they by chance all the same person?
Reading some of the responses baffles me. The sense of entitlement is prevalent!
Please, in the age of the internet, setup your own business and stop waiting for another schmuck to create one.
Many things you can do to make money online, but it involves work.
Trust me, if you think you have it bad, wait to hear the bad luck story of your other citizens.
Wake up! Most of the jobs lost are not coming back. Create your own and be free to make as much as you can.
I can't speak for everybody else but I am sorted, I am however concerned about others.
Not everybody is capable of creating their own jobs. It isn't instinctive and it isn't taught in school.
I would just like to say that I know someone who has a BA and a PHD who, due to health problems, is stuck taking temporary jobs at minimum wage. She did nothing to deserve this. Not everyone is in low paying jobs due to laziness or lack of drive. Her job prospects are also poor due to age. This woman deserves a living wage...
It would be great if everyone could create their own businesses and be successful and make lots of money, but that is not realistic and those who think it is are not living in the real world. (NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK)
I agree with you UW. I think in Canada if you are 40+ your chances to get a well paid job slim to nothing.
You look at this issue from a negative and that only brings negative results. Well, let me give you some ideas of what the jobless person mentioned can do if in able body and mind
1-- Write articles, how many can she write a day? I have seen well written articles (500 words or more) go from $6 or more. How many can she create daily
2-- Write and publish them on hubpages daily! You know, we have some here making good money monthly here.
3- create a website - easy learning curve and create your own online empire
4-- does she have a reliable skill, then she can go on ELANCER to see if her skills will be needed.
5- She can create an ebook on many topics and publish them on AMAZON
You see many ways to go, instead of victimhood.
Everyone is looking for a job, but no one is willing to risk the capital to create one.
The govt cannot create jobs, because it does not know how to run a business. It is up to us to create own own jobs or find a risk taker that will give you one.
That is another generalization and an attack as well.
Who pray tell is claiming to be a victim?
Again your assuming things about people which you do not know.
She writes a lot but is more interested in the craft than making money. It's too bad, she is an amazing writer who should be making the big bucks.
She does not see herself as a victim. She is happy with any job she can get.
Oh hell no!
If you get rid of the Minimum wage, it will just go back to the depression. People worked all day and night for next to nothing, while big business owners became billionaires.
The only thing this will succeed in doing is having a huge percentage of the population working part-time for $2.00 an hour or less. Businesses already know that they can pick and choose who they want to work for them, because of the massive pool of the millions of unemployed. Paying them even less when they are already cutting wages now, would just be a huge bonus.
The company I worked for about had a heart attack when they passed the minimum wage, and cut workers pay to make up for the difference, and hired half of what they would normally hire. If they thought they could get away with still paying people $4.85 an hour, they would, and they would still cut labor. This from a Company that is currently boasting a 2 billion dollar yearly profit.
There might be wage competition, but, the amounts will only go down. Anyone who thinks the cheapskates who own half the business in this country would pay better wages is living in a dreamland. Every company I ever worked for always cut labor before anything else. It's just what they do.
I actually believe that taking away the minimum wage will ruin the value of the 'Beginning of a person's work History.' When children start work, they don't understand the value of money or the value of a work life. However, as they continue through their work history, value of money and work life can mature. I like your intro above. We don't need to go back to the depression. Heck! Our USA country was hit with Main Street & Wall Street hitting Bankrupt in 2007/2008, declared by the government in 2008 and the country is still working thru recovering.
The answer is simple, NO employers should not be allowed to pay employees less. Not everyone has the same opportunities as others, and have to work a couple of jobs to make ends meet. To sit in judgement of someone else without knowing their situation is insane.
No, it is time to DOUBLE the minimum wage and then grab all other incomes below median wage and lift them up to accordingly fall into line with the new minimum wage. Then lop off 10% of the total wages made by everyone above median wage and let them redistribute their incomes as needed to pay for the low wage income modifications. Reduce income taxes. Add Sales tax. Cut all major spending programs in half (including defense). Add massive investments to infrastructure, education, and innovation.
Allowing industry, business to dictate how people should be pay must not have been such a good idea since they changed it.
A sweatshop in Chicago, Illinois in 1903Statutory minimum wages were first proposed as a way to control the proliferation of sweat shops in manufacturing industries. The sweat shops employed large numbers of women and young workers, paying them what were considered to be substandard wages. The sweatshop owners were thought to have unfair bargaining power over their workers, and a minimum wage was proposed as a means to make them pay "fairly." Over time, the focus changed to helping people, especially families, become more self sufficient. Today, minimum wage laws cover workers in most low-paid fields of employment.
Certain business now can't pay Americans low enough salaries so they govern seas and pay them low wages.
Oh yes the arugument is to be profitable but can anyone say how much is enough? You have a billion dollars is that enough?
Exactly. This is the reason why removing the minimum wage would not work. If companies are so unwilling to pay a good wage in the U.S., and move their companies to other countries for cheaper labor, what makes anyone think that they would be willing to pay more here if there were no minimum here?
If they stayed in the U.S. with no wage restrictions, they would stay only because they will assume that everyone will have to work for less money, and it would be a domino effect of companies lowering salaries across the board. They are already getting rid of long term employees, cutting benefits, and going with temp services, so they have a continuing stream of low paid workers. Every major company is cutting staff, and sending a lot of those jobs over seas, where people are willing to work for a dollar a day. The difference is that people over there can afford it, because their cost of living is totally different than ours.
I don't know how it would work if they abolished minimum wage altogether, but have you noticed that as soon as minimum wage goes up, so does the cost of living. Everything gets a price increase from gasoline to toilet paper, and food. Rents increase as well as utilities.
If you don't believe me just watch what happens once the next minimum wage increase happens.
So I just think all it does is increase inflation.
It seems pointless to raise minimum wage when all it does is raise the cost of everything else.
No, I haven't noticed that and I doubt if you really have.
You are upside down - the minimum wage is geared to inflation, when inflation goes up your gov puts up the minimum to keep up.
So all those poor people are not driving up the cost of living that is completely down to the US and UK inability to maintain their flawed economic policies - whatever party are stealing you blind.
So a load of people get exploited so that we can buy cheap toilet paper? One of the big inequalities that needs to be eliminated in this world is that for those of us lucky ones to have cheap clothes, electronics, cars etc, there are poorly paid people struggling to get basic accommodation, food, and medical aid. Its not fair and its not right
People think and talk like the economy and our society is the best there is and so we have to live with how thing work, but I'm certain there are better ways of creating a society but incorparting less greed is something a lot of people will not go with because we've lived with this kind of system for so long.
The minimum wage is always a good guideline for newbies that have just entered the workforce or for part timers say at a fast food place.
In my opinion, abolishing the minimum wage may be good in the distant future, but the initial downfall it would cause would be terrible. The workers will either suffer exploitation level wage or unions will be forcing employers to pay over and above level wages.
Once you allow business to lower the minimum wage, fighting to oust the Unions will be next. Walmart closed several stores in one state at the same time, to avoid having to pay union wages. The problem is that nothing is being done to keep big business on it's toes. Continuing to allow them to do whatever they want with their employees, is only going to get worse if something isn't done about it. The Minimum wage is the only thing we have.
I agree with this. I think the best thing is to just make it easy for employers to hire below minimum wage for certain jobs that have minimal value.
To all those who predict wondrous happenings if the minimum wage was abolished, remember why it was introduced in the first place.
It was introduced to counter unacceptable levels of poverty, and, in the UK at least, to cut down the subsidy of businesses by government.
But then if you really fancy the US being just another third world country go ahead, it's no skin off my nose.
A minimum wage law is compulsory unemployment. The law says: it is illegal, and therefore criminal, for anyone to hire anyone else below the level of X dollars an hour. This means, plainly and simply, that a large number of free and voluntary wage contracts are now outlawed and hence that there will be a large amount of unemployment. The minimum wage law provides no jobs; it only outlaws them; and outlawed jobs are the inevitable result.
You keep banging on about how not allowing slave wages causes unemployment, how come it never happened in the UK?
Do you not suspect that unemployment might just be the responsibility of the bosses and the bankers?
Do you really think that slavery should be legalised?
the unemployment exists, you just don't see it because it's "normal".
The minimum wage wasn't even necessary because companies were already paying that much.
It's mostly the first one: are there still people who operate the elevator in the UK? Once you had to pay them 5 bucks an hour, those jobs went out the window.
Let me say this for the last time.
Just because I don't think minimum wage should exist does NOT mean I like to torture kitty cats, or that I'm the son of satan.
Quit saying things like "you hate minimum wage, thus you want slavery". It REALLY makes your side of the argument look foolish.
Competition raises wages, and thus slavery won't exist.
If you answer the following question in the negative, then you prove your argument to be false:
"Would you work for $0.50 an hour to collect garbage?"
IF you answered "no", then you clearly understand that wages would NEVER collapse to "slavery" levels.
So how long has there been a minimum wage in the US and for how many years before that did the market and competition have to raise wages?
Or what has changed to make the market work when it so miserably failed to in the past?
Competition doesn't automatically raise wages. It just allows the markets to set wages at appropriate levels. It doesn't matter if I would work for 0.50, it matters if someone else will. Minimum wage is a defense against allowing the market to drive wages down into the dirt.
Yeah, I think Evan has a terribly naive idea of how competition really works.
Competition only has a real impact at the level of profits. One of the easiest ways to increase profit is to cut payroll expenses. This means that there is a constant downward pressure on wages.
It does not work the other way around, where the best man gets paid the most and the other men are just out of luck. Rather, the best man gets paid as little as possible, and everyone else gets even less.
And competition doesn't work at all without the watchful eye of the Justice Department, SEC and other government regulators. Adam Smith talked at length about the tendency of businessmen to conspire to raise prices and screw their customers. The worshipers of Smith's magical "indivisible hand" conveniently ignore Smith's warning about conspiring businessmen.
Yes, I suspect Evan has a job tree growing in his backyard. It is the only thing that would seem to explain his belief that anyone, anywhere, and at anytime can simply walk off their job and easily find a better one.
I'm happy for him if he does, but he really just doesn't seem to understand the reality of the world the rest of us are living in. The one where people get fired rather than given a raise and then if you can even find another job you end up being paid less than the guy your former company hired to replace you. And none of it has anything to do with talent or skill or hard work.
yes yes, I'm evil and fail to understand everything.
I demand an end to minimum wage. I'm not stupid. I'm not naive. I'm not evil.
Supply and demand: a price is generated by supply and demand. Minimum wage doesn't create jobs, it just forces the price lower. Shortages ensue.
Basic economics shows the problem.
Oh Evan, nobody is saying you are either stupid or evil.
But why oh why do you insist on forcing people into poverty?
Why, if market forces sort every thing, is there a need for a minimum wage?
Do you really think that making the US a minimum wage country, competing with third world economies, the way to go?
"Oh Evan, nobody is saying you are either stupid or evil."
Actually, I've had numerous people say this to me numerous times in this forum.
Here's a statement by someone:
"why do you insist on forcing people into poverty?"
that sounds pretty evil!
Can you actually explain how that works?
As I see it if you put more money into the economy more goods are bought and more jobs are created but you tell me that this creates unemployment!
Give somebody a pay rise, so they can afford to buy two loafs of bread instead of one, why does that force prices down and create shortages? Surely your free market will absorb the increased demand?
This is the fault of "demand side economics" logic.
IF you give your employees an extra billion bucks a minute, they aren't going to be spending it at YOUR store! How many of us here can say that we spend the money we get from our employers ON our employers?...
... let alone claim that we spend ALL of our money on our employers!
I worked for 4 years as a teacher in Japan. I spent little to no money paying for English lessons!
"But if they paid me more, then I could spend more money!"
Yeah, that's true... but THEY WOULDN'T be able to spend more money!
There are a limited number of resources on this earth, and no matter how much money is on this planet, people are still going to bid up the prices to equilibrium.
Basically, demand side economics argues: "if we let money rain down from the sky, we'll all have ferraris!" But this is clearly nonsense.
Money only represents resources in ratios.
I didn't say any of those things, but, whether you like it or not, your comments, which have been numerous, about going out and getting a better job ARE terribly insensitive to the realities in which a lot of people find themselves. If you can't hear the millions of people who are shouting about it than you aren't listening. If you hear, but don't care, than you'll have to live with whatever is thrown your way I guess.
As for the economics, minimum wage is NOT a basic economics problem. It isn't supply and demand lines on a graph. To really examine the issue requires quite a bit more than that, such as elasticities, market segmentations, corporate and group coercions, other government policies, etc. And that is all without even adding in international considerations.
I'm nowhere near smart enough to do that examination, BUT, considering the wage trend for the low and middle class over the past 30 years, I personally feel that the macroeconomic patterns in place would push wages below the minimum wage floor if it were removed. And I think what a lot of people are reacting to (including me) is that there is a whole big pile of us that are hurting and can not afford any more of a loss. And it isn't, I can't buy a latte today hurting, it is, I don't know what the heck I am going to do tomorrow hurting.
With that being said, it seems to me that your position has always been that the minimum wage policy is bad because it DOESN'T WORK, not that you have anything against improving the conditions of the poor. There's certainly nothing "evil" about that and in a simple and/or perfect market, I might even tend to agree with you, but I just don't think it is anywhere near that simple (or perfect). It's messy.
it IS basic economics.
Draw a supply and demand graph, and then add the information into it that says "you can't purchase the good/service BELOW a certain price". This is known as a "price floor", or a "minimum price".
A price floor can only have two effects:
1)A waste of time and legislation,or;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ineff … _Floor.svg
2)A shortage of the good in question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Surpl … _Floor.svg
The minimum wage does NOT create jobs, it merely makes it illegal to ask for workers at a certain price.
If I were to tell you that you can only buy Coca-Cola at $5.00/can, the company would pump out coke like a mad-man (because they make huge profits), but fewer people would buy it (because it costs more). People would say "that's not fair! Coke doesn't cost that much! They're exploiting us!".
... but then you'd hear everyone here yelling "Coka-Cola employs thousands of people! Don't you care about the people who work for coke?! They are a staple of American culture, you clearly hate America's culture!!"
It's the EXACT same thing, only we're talking about incomes.
You're very confused aren't you!
We aren't discussing the price of goods, we're discussing the cost of labour.
Labor... is ... a good/service...?
Labor is a service! It's just like going to the doctor and paying him for his service!
The only difference is that the money is going away from "LARGE FAT-CAT SOULLESS ENTREPRENEURS" and towards "the poor, helpless, everyday man on the street! y'know, Joe the Plumber!"
And yet you argue that is wrong! You want the large fat cat souless entrepreneurs to have more!
Yes, I do!
I don't hate the people that give me jobs, I love them! They are giving me a job. They don't hate me, either! They love that I can come there for X hours a day and provide a service for them.
They make money. I make money. we're all happy.
BUT! If they have to pay me more to work (the same way that Coke has to pay more to make their product), then there will be a shortage of positions because they will automatize the work to be done (Coke will alter the recipe to keep prices down).
BTW, I had a Pepsi "throwback" last night. It had REAL sugar in it. Boy howdy, it tasted different!! It didn't give me the usual jitters either! This crap on the market today is REALLY different than the normal recipe. I wish there were no Sugar Price Floors!
It REALLY did taste "less bad for me". It was the darnedest thing.
But you aren't arguing on your own admitted fairly comfortable life style, you are arguing on behalf of those without enough income to keep body and soul together!
The argument I'm making helps BOTH parties involved: the manager doesn't have to pay as much to get his goods out, and the people have more jobs to work with.
It's win-win. Most of the $5/hour jobs would be filled by teenagers trying to enter the marketplace and prove themselves. And as they prove they're good workers, they can command a better wage (they do this by applying for other jobs and taking the best offer).
I understood the basic economics of it in 8th grade. Basic economics by definition is basic. Basic economic models are useful for examining issues with a few simple variables in a perfect market at static time slices. In a perfect market everything works as it should - everyone is free and everyone is rational.
Basic economics and basic economic models are only the BEGINNING when examining complex, dynamic, real-world issues with a multitude of variables. The real world is imperfect - not everyone is free - not everyone is rational.
IF the minimum wage was a basic economic issue than your simple model would match the empirical evidence, and while some have said it does, there are others who say it does not.
A recent study, for instance, came to the conclusion that minimum wage increases had "no detectable employment losses". One possible reason given is that the benefit of lower worker turnover counterbalanced the increased wages. If you have ever worked at a place that employees a lot of low-wage workers, than you know that turnover is a huge problem, so that actually makes a lot of sense.
So, where in your simple supply/demand curves is the dynamic variable of worker turnover? And/or all of the other complex, dynamic variables that should be there?
"Minimum Wage Effects Across State Borders: Estimates Using Contiguous Counties". Arindrajit Dube, T. William Lester, and Michael Reich
https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/folbre/RES … proof2.pdf
Thanks, junkseller. The study you linked confirms my recollection of articles describing similar studies which showed that the earnings increased following an increase in the minimum wage and there was no significant negative effect on employment. There have been claims and studies with the opposite result, but I suspect that they were financed by fast food industry employers associations. In the movie Inside Job the movie pointed out the fact that many big name economists, including Larry Summers, Feldstein and several others including the current dean of the Columbia business school who was a Bush economist make a lot of money in consulting fees and fees for writing research papers favorable to a particular industry or company. The American Economics Association is currently considering an ethics rule that would require academic economists to disclose their sources of earnings aside from their faculty salaries so that readers of their papers would be informed of any payments from interested parties.
Posting verifiable facts in a political forum is the same as in a religious forum, waste of time. Nobody wants to know the truth Ralph, they prefer their pre-conceptions and prejudices.
This whole issue of minimum wage is a red herring. Minimum wage may have been touted by by politicians as a social issue but in fact it is just an essential mechanism of any welfare system. If an employee is getting money from somewhere else the employer just pays that amount less in wages as they did in the days pre-minimum wage.
To argue in favour of abolishing the minimum wage is just an argument against the welfare system.
"Posting verifiable facts in a political forum is the same as in a religious forum, waste of time. Nobody wants to know the truth Ralph, they prefer their pre-conceptions and prejudices."
I partially agree. But I think these forums will benefit from more facts and more opinions supported by facts and logic. I don't think that's too much to hope for. We all should try to be open minded and learn as much as we can. I learn from looking things up in order to refute what appear to me to be incorrect opinions or fallacious arguments. Not often, but once in a while somebody admits to changing their mind.
I didn't read the whole thing, but it didn't look like he took inflation of the money supply, inflation in the local economy to counter balance the rise in prices, etc. into his account.
There's a lot of political and economic theory surrounding issues of human behavior. My belief is that virtually all people are inherently self-interested. It's how we have survived as a species.
What I have realized over the years is that people vary in how compassionate they are and how willing they are to share. Most people at the top of the proverbial food chain do not tend to share their wealth with others, except those in their inner circle perhaps.
We have thousands of years of history supporting the tendency to oppress others. Fiefdoms, "communism", dictatorships, sweatshops, child labor, etc, etc.
We basically need to protect the have-nots from the haves.
As much as I would like to see the market dictate value and reward, I don't think it works in the long run.
The tendency leans toward the stronger fish eating the weaker fish. The smaller stores lose to the bigger stores. Monopolies form. Political influence further strengthens the positions of the few, at the cost of the many.
Although I am not a Marxist, I do wonder if we as a population almost need a revolution. No dynasty or empire has lasted. Eventually the breaking point will be reached and we start over. For now, we regulate in hopes of keeping life "fair and equal" a little longer.
it is not just an economic trend, its a biological trend. its called emergence. groups really organize into one. cells became animals, families became tribes, tribes became nations and now globalization. it constantly unites and breaks up. the thing to do is to be ahead in predicting the trend and responding appropriately.
one example is the music industry. It has come full circle. Musicians have to play to make money again.
Is it time to abolish the minimum wage? This question isn't rational or well thought out.
All Right. How do you like this wording?
"Should we take money from the lowest-paid workers in the country and put the money in the pockets of the richest, non-working aristocrats of this country and pretend it's being done for the sake of ideological purity?"
Doug! You would be a Libertarian if only you pointed this same thinking to Taxation!
Minimum wage isn't "stealing money and giving it to the rich" --- that's called "tax"!!
Minimum wage is saying "it is illegal for you to work for less than $X/hour."; it's a price floor.
The only difference is that, with other price floors, the common man on the street is the one SPENDING the money - thus, everyone is against them.
But with minimum wage, the person who spends the money is the "richest, non-working aristocrats of this country", and thus everyone loves it."
It's just ONE more example of the Tyranny of the Masses. It's just another failure of democracy... except, in this case, the little guy "wins".
What does he win? Less jobs!
It isn't a price floor, it's a cost floor and all other costs are artificially fixed.
The cost of sugar used in your coke is fixed, why not the cost of labour?
The cost of sugar in my coke IS fixed! And they have to use a more expensive product, High Fructose Corn Syrup, in STEAD of sugar to produce it at a cost people will still pay!
The "price floor" made prices higher, and thus it has hurt the wealth of the people.
In order for me to get a Coke, I have to pay more than I would normally have to. It costs me MORE to enjoy what I love.
"Doug! You would be a Libertarian if only you pointed this same thinking to Taxation!"
I would be but I can't get my head that far up my a$$.
If the minimum wage were abolished and no other safeguards were set in place for the worker - then they would suffer - one of the things that business owners fail to realize is that one one can live on peanuts and there excuse is that 'I can't afford to pay beginning hires more' this is not true - the reason they say they can't is that too many of bus owners are operating on a shoestring and have failed to adequately monitor their margins for profitability - another is that they are not funded enough.
Another reason for low wages is the terrible work ethic in this country with the young people and the way they really don't care about customer service or coming to work on time - I know I have seen this many times.
I read this article about this restrauant that in the first 30 days had a 90% turnaround in employees due to that fact that all of them said 'they knew what to do' and there was a lack of team work. If a business wants to succeed it must pay a 'living wage' and at the same time hire those that really want to work And give them the tools that will allow them to work, however too many times instead of giveing employees the tools to do their job it's a set of rules and regs that may put handcuffs on them instead.
I think the minimum wage needs to be abolished. The government needs to provide some form of funding or tax break for businesses to allow them to pay people enough so that it will cover basic expense at least.
So you're saying the government, ie all of us, should subsidise businesses, no matter how profitable that business might be!!
Well here in the UK at least low earners get tax credits and help with housing costs. This is connected to the amount you earn and not to your employers profitability.
The UK is an entirely different market scenario. We are talking about the US. I think the UK has a wide small business population that thrive precisely because its Europe and the buying practices are different.
The government does?
Also, how are we defining "basic expense at least"?
I only ask this because I've seen numerous videos of homeless people who have been living with a roof over their head, enough food to survive, and all other "basic expenses" which cost them NOTHING.
Societies are becoming SO wealthy that the poorest of the poor are actually able to live off of charity of others, and the waste of others.
the "Basic expense" seems to be nearing $0/hour, nowadays.
Evan, if you are working you should get paid more than the minimum wage level. At least you are putting some effort in earning a living.
What if you're digging holes in a desert and then filling them back up again? does that still require a $9/hour wage?
(pssst, this actually happened during the great depression - the government thought it would be a good idea to pay people money to dig holes, and then immediately fill them back up).
Yes and we all know that all beggars have brand new cars parked round the corner!
The homeless, who live off nothing, contribute nothing to society, they don't generate jobs or income or anything.
Now you're arguing that "a basic minimum wage" should include a Ferrari?
Anyway, the homeless usually do NOT do much for society - I can agree there.
But then I'll go one step further and say that the reason they can't get back IN TO the job market is because they can't say "I'll do this job to prove myself! I need the redeem my reputation, and the only way to do it is to work for half the wages of other people!!"
But with a minimum wage law, he can't do this.
Think about it: You're a manager and some homeless guy comes in to ask for a job making french fries. He says "I need this job so bad. I made some bad decisions in my life, and I want to go clean and straight! I know you've had other, better candidates for this job, but I'm willing to work for less. Give me the job, let me prove myself, pay me $3.00/hour". As a manager, you'd LOVE to hire the guy (after all, you can just fire him if he screws up). But you CAN'T give him a second chance because it's illegal!
With the "oh so wonderful" minimum wage law, this endearing scenario just CAN NOT happen. Second chances are destroyed with minimum wage.
(see, I'm not a heartless bastard who wants people to live in poverty! I'm trying to point out that minimum wages LEADS to poverty)
And the guy who WAS making some kind of living at $6 per hour making fries is out of work, unless he cuts HIS wage to less then $3..
Who wins? - the owner who has no IDEA how to make fries...
if the guy loses his job, but is worth $6/hour, then he can quit and find a better job.
Also, everyone else in the economy can buy fries cheaper
But in reality the guy who's lost his $6 an hour job ends up with another $3 an hour job and the price of chips remains the same.
That is actually true for chips. But in a downturn and chips become a luxury than a staple, eventually, the price will go down. If labor costs allow it.
I see the phenomenon in goods, particularly non-essentials. I sometimes help my friend sell her goods at Trade Shows. The cost of labor, plays a huge part in the cost of goods. Buyers buy it a very low cost and doubles or triples them in the store. The profits of stores allows them to hire more people. As the profits dwindle, less people are hired. These are direct immediate impact. High benefits/pay, lower job opportunities. Looking from the inside. You see why american manufacturers are losing out in the big way to Asians.
Looking from the outside I see why American manufacturers are losing out to Asians.
They are replicating the mistakes the UK made half a century or more ago and insisting on hanging on to the old ways. You can't compete with Asia on their terms, not even if you matched wages at $90 a month!
Look at Germany, they don't need to pay slave wages and yet they still have markets, you want a BMW, you buy it from Germany, not Japan. You want hi tech railway equipment, you buy it from Germany, not China!
Heck even though we in the UK have sold off most of our big names to foreigners they still sell because they have the British cachet.
Look at Landrover, now owned by an Indian company, it is still built in the UK providing 17,000 UK jobs.
Heck we even have a company that makes whistles, you would think an ideal Asian enterprise, it exports masses of whistles to Asian countries.
Get over yourselves, stop saying people must live in poverty and start doing something that Asia can't do better than you.
I'm not saying do better than Asia. Obviously Asians can afford to accept less pay simply because life is cheaper in Asia.
What I'm saying is, you have this huge need for services to free up think tanks to do what they do best instead of doing menial things like cleaning houses and operating low-think machinery, you have a high cost of education, you have a diminishing job market. What do you do? Do you insist that everybody should be paid atleast 7-8 dollars per hour?
You don't have to live in poverty to let the market forces shape the economy. You are responding to what people need more and what they can pay for.
The solution could be that if there is a need for dog-walkers more than companions for senior citizen, the cost of senior citizen care would rise naturally. dog-walkers are paid $10.00 dollars per hour. Stay-at-home nannies at $7.00 minimum wage per hour. Tell me that's not crazy. the problem is this. There is no dog-walker profession that is legalized. But there are for nannies. When the market forces determine the cost of labor, the pay naturally goes up depending on supply and demand.
That's not saying live in poverty. That's saying you will see what jobs have more supply than demand and you can respond appropriately.
"The cost of labor, plays a huge part in the cost of goods. Buyers buy it a very low cost and doubles or triples them in the store. The profits of stores allows them to hire more people. "
This looks like logic at first glance. but it breaks down in a real economic system. First, no one hires people they don't need. So the argument that hiring is relative to profits is FALSE. Hiring is relative to SALES - to increase hiring you have to increase consumption.
Will slashing the wages for millions of workers increase consumption? Nope. It will do exactly the REVERSE. Instead of one family per apartment, families will move in with in-laws or double up - 2 families in one apartment. This austerity has a 'trickle-up' effect. For example, the electric company in central FL has had to lay off people because of fewer customers.
The price of fries won't go down - people will be taking bologna sandwiches to work, because McDonalds will be out of their budget. Sales of food will go down - people who have to make do for a family with an income of LESS than 10k per year will buy rice in bulk - a $2 box of cornflakes will be out of reach.
The economy will tumble from a recession to a full-scale depression.
So, for the sake of a guy who might, just might, want a job making fries you'd have ten's of thousands living in poverty!
If the guy is so keen to prove him self then let him throw the boss a free week?
Does anyone realize just how many single Moms are attempting to provide for their children while walking to a minimum wage job.
It seems as though the minimum wage is based upon the cost of a loaf of bread and a gal. of gasoline.
When minimum wage was first established at $.75 per hour, a galon of milk was about a quarter, a loaf of bread was a dime.
But the minimum wage hasn’t kept up.
And some people think that minimum wage is too high?
Do we realize that as we raise the bar for the less fortunate, the quality of life for everyone is raised.
Starving people commit crimes against society.
And that is only the tip of the iceburg.
I believe minimum wage keeps an honest man honest. If it was abolished then normally honest men/women would claim they don't make enough in revenue to pay a decent wage.
To think that a store/business owner would pay more than the current minimum wage that is required by Government is ludicrous. Think about it. If you have money coming in, you are going to do everything you can to keep as much as you can. The small business man is no different.
Austrian School economists and Ayn Randians view the minimum wage as an intolerable violation of free market priciples. Most economists and politicians say that a small deviation from pure market principles is justified in a civilized society. The fast food purveyors squeal like stuck pigs every time an increase in the minimum wage is proposed, but studies show that the minimum wage does not influence employment in the fast food industry.
Corporate America spends millions every year lobbying for regulations which improve their bottom lines. But the Banksters and Chamber of Commerce, Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Coal betray a consistent "F**k the poor" attitude and conduct.
There are more fast food outlets in my area than anything else! They all charge more or less the same price, differences being in pennies and reflecting the quality of the premises as much as anything else.
Occasionally one will be busted for staffing with illegal immigrants and closed down whilst they restaff. Neither before or after this closure will their prices be different to other fast food outlets.
Therefore it's safe to say that wages have no affect on prices, only profits.
The fact is, the prices don't change because of patronage. Once again these are market forces. In the food industry, its very hard for staples to be affected, but in other industries, for example manufacturing, labor cost plays a huge part of the cost of goods.
Yes, the prices don't change because the charges are based entirely on what the market will bear, not on production costs.
In many other industries the same principle applies, prices are entirely demand lead and not influenced by labour costs.
In those few jobs where labour is a major cost, one has to ask if the jobs are really worth having many working in poverty just to steal a march on the Chinese, after all. if they are so labour intensive and of such marginal profitability they do not do much for the commonwealth do they? In fact they probably have a negative impact on the economy, what with tax credits and welfare payments.
I don't understand what you're saying to be honest. China happens to have a culture of business. They will not pay their laborers more because they believe that for every laborer that leaves, another will take his place. I know this first hand. If they value a worker, they will keep this worker and pay him well, even him pay him to just show up without doing anything. They are very superstitious. That is why there is a china town everywhere you go. Their business acumen managed to escape communism. They managed to make money elsewhere doing what they do best.
Their secret is going where the money is, using time to make profit and
knowing the value of labor. This is not the same as placing a static value on laborers. When the labor is unimportant, they value it less. When labor is crucial they invest. They have a very organic business model. They respond. They will copy if they have to, but staying in a path to no money they will not. It's got its ups and downs.
Americans were notorious for keeping people for as long as they are productive too. You have all these labor laws precisely because in the sixties, laborers are discarded without benefits. It was very utilitarian.
I would say that these safe-gaurds have worked and have improved working conditions here in the US for a while now. But in a downturn, would you not respond. People are losing business and jobs. Insisting on coping mechanisms that were applicable 100 years ago without rethinking them to suit the times is stupidity.
A hint, if what happens in the UK is totally irrelevant to the US, so is what happens in China.
Surely what's happening in China is very relevant to the US, UK and everywhere else in the West come to that.
A large part of the reason for the minimum wage debate is the fact that people in Chinese factories are making the iPods, computers, clothes etc. that we buy in the West, and they're doing it for wages that would barely keep some Westerners in takeaway coffee.
except that most of the popular american products are made by chinese laborers in china.
i lived in europe, there are many small business in europe that has been there for several generations.european purchasing habits are different. europeans want to be distinctive, so the existence of small businesses thrive. americans like brand names. small business struggle here.
I would say this is broadly true, however when you say 'Americans like brand names' you are touching on a situation that reflects the near monopoly that a relatively few corporations have on the manufacture or purchase, logisitcs and retail of products. These corporations choose to buy overseas from China (or wherever) and sell them to the US consumer for prices that undercut the same goods manufactured in the US. This sell-out by american companies of their 'own people' is one basic cause of the economic crisis, yet these same people through the media they control castigate the Chinese for selling the stuff to them !
I lived in asia, europe and america.
the difference is this: asians buy asian. europeans buy european. americans buy brands. ralph lauren, louie vuitton, uggs. It doesn't matter if its american or not as long as its BIG and its expensive.
Which just supports what I said, Americans buy according to the dictates of advertising by the corporations, small businesses cannot compete against the advertising and brand share of the market - your local leather worker cannot put Loui Vuitton on his far superior quality handbag, and if his fashion style remotely echoes one of the brands he can be sued out of existence by the relavant corporation that 'owns' the brand, hence he must always be out of the fashion that has been already dictated by the corporation.
The point of my post however was that it is US business that is selling out the US people. Only they are big enough to 'outsource' while they stifle competition.
yes, i know. that was my point. big american business is killing small american business. but then, as a consumer, americans are not necessarily patriotic.
they are patriotic but not in their preferences, which is why DKNY is a smaller brand compared to Louie Vuitton. French is big here as well as italian.
cecilabeltran:" labor cost play a hugh cost in the price of goods", In manufacturing. Is that why a pair of tennis made in china for 2dollars labor cost 200 dollars here in america?
Things may have changed sinse I read my last business weekly ??
They used to teach that a business must keep labor cost at approx 14 TO 15 percent of groce income.
Now come on; If we raised the minimum wage, this does not affect the factory worker,the electrician or the plumber or office personell.
Yep, blaming the poorest of society for our problems; that is dead on accurate to where all of our problems lay. NOT !
This article would prove that minimum wage is an archaic idea that needs to be reconsidered.
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/effects- … -4858.html
In Texas in 2010, a full-time, minimum wage worker would earn $510 over the national poverty level. Supply-side economists point out that small businesses who are unable to absorb higher wages will simply choose between workforce reduction or passing the higher cost on to consumers. Most choose the latter, which inflates the price of goods and services provided by small businesses.
Labor, like agricultural products, is a commodity. The price of labor is directly impacted by market forces. In economic booms, the price of labor goes up as skilled and experienced workers command higher wages. In economic downturns, the price of labor drops as unemployment rises. The result is that skilled and experienced workers displace unskilled and inexperienced workers in lower-paying positions. To small businesses, this is discounted labor, as they pay less in wages for more experienced and skilled employees."
of course no one even talked about this because it completely supports what evan and I are saying. Let's just say its far from the best solution but it does have strong merits.
The first misses out the third option which is that the proprietor takes less out of the business.
The second that most businesses are wary of taking on over skilled labour as they will be quick to leave at an upturn and they'll not be quite as malleable as unskilled workers.
have you ever met a business man who would sacrifice profit for his country and strangers he's never met. You've never been in business?
This is a clear overview of the pros and cons. See the advantages on get rid of the minimum wage versus keep it.
It's clear john, there it is 12 for 4 against you dispute facts in black and white. Pros beat cons produced by balancedpolitics. lol
Cecilia's information appears to me to have come straight from the fast food lobby. The source was not identified. Here's a more balanced source:
If it was truly balanced it would be 6:6 :-)
We've all produced for and against lists and we've all included bias to make them say what we want.
by SparklingJewel5 years ago
here is one "perspective of facts"...anyone have another as well put together source of a "different perspective of facts" ?Seriously, just like the economy and how it is run, or how businesses are...
by Josak5 years ago
Wages have not been keeping up with the cost of living for a long time now in the US and the primary reason is the weakening of the unions, the problem really began during the presidency of Ronnie the union buster...
by Shawn McIntyre4 years ago
Always a hot button issue, let's see what HubPages has to say:Should the Minimum Wage be:A) Raised. B) LoweredC) Done away with immediately D) Phased out over the next 10 years.E) None of the above.
by Sychophantastic3 years ago
What do you think of Nick Hanauer's suggestion that we have a $15 minimum wage?His article suggesting this can be found here:http://topinfopost.com/2014/06/30/ultra … are-coming
by Robert Erich5 years ago
With the continual outsourcing of jobs to other countries, the struggling national economy, and the unrealistic ability for everyone to earn a college degree, should minimum wage be eliminated?Just something that I have...
by Stacie L6 years ago
Michele Bachmanns radical position on minimum wageBy Greg SargentThis morning, Michele Bachmann confirmed on Good Morning America that she could support abolishing the Federal minimum wage. Thats an actual substantive...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.