Economic Discussion of Minimum Wage Laws

Started by Valthazar, March 20, 2013, 01:36:28 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Valthazar

One of the most hotly contested topics in Congress right now is the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013.  Without getting into the details, its basic premise is to mandate companies to raise the minimum hourly wage that they currently pay employees - with an additional clause to mandate additional minimum wage setting in upcoming years commensurate to the inflationary rate.  At a cursory level, this appears to be a fantastic idea, since a thriving middle class ultimately benefits everyone in an economy.  However, many prominent economists are making the case that raising the minimum wage actually hurts the very people it strives to assist - the poor.

In order to understand this perspective, one has to understand the basics of economics, and how the prices of commodities, salaries for employees, and market prices for industries are set by the free market.  Any economist will explain that no individual company essentially entirely “chooses” the price of its product, nor does any individual company entirely “choose” the wages it pays its employees.  While the company certainly does have choice on these factors, their ultimate determinations are usually slight positive (+) or negative (-) deviations from the market/industry standards for pricing/salaries.  My purpose in stating this fact is to reinforce the idea that wages for workers are set by the free-market - not “entirely” independently chosen by the employer. 

With that fact in mind, let me provide one perspective on this issue.  The idea of the free-market setting the wages of all workers is a phenomenon that actually empowers the worker, since it gives him/her more lobbying power in finding an optimally paying job.  For example, if a worker is unable to find work, he or she can choose to work for less money, rather than being entirely unemployed as it stands today due to minimum wage standards.  Currently, there are millions of Americans who cannot find work - and are unable to look for work in businesses who may offer measly work here and there for $4-5/hour because of minimum wage laws.  As it stands right now, these Americans are forced to use unemployment benefits automatically, simply because businesses are barred from offering small jobs for lower pay.

In addition, the concept of raising the minimum wage actually prompts business to reduce the number of jobs they offer.  If a business owner was facing a new minimum wage law that required him or her to artificially raise the wages of certain employees without a corresponding increase in his/her profits/revenue, he or she would simply slice the number of jobs in his business.  Ultimately, this ends up hurting the very people that minimum wage laws aim to help - entry level workers and the poor, which would result in a rise in the unemployment rate.  Now, the employee unable to find work finds himself back in the first scenario - since he or she cannot seek work for a lower pay either.

I wanted to keep my thoughts relatively broad to get some of your input.  Do you have any perspectives justified by economic theory on the topic of minimum wage?

RubySlippers

Well as a disabled person I would say ,with other hard to get employed groups, the minimum wage hurts me at least. Look at it from an employers point of view I'm in a wheelchair and have other issues such as I can't multitask or perform complex work. I'm a risk to hire, now if I could take say in Florida instead of $7.79 for say $5.79 per hour why shouldn't I be able to?

As I see it working gives three things one needs to get better work later:

1. A credible work record I'm self-employed now so to the workplace I have no work history.

2. References again a big issue for me.

3. Gaining meaningful skills to areas of work supported by the first two.

Its getting one foot in the door that is key, for young workers and others you can't even get that foot in the door it seems.

Valthazar

Ruby, you make some good points.  The main reason I brought this issue up is because I feel a lot of younger workers (college students) seem to overwhelmingly support the minimum wage increases, when in reality, it makes it difficult for them to start off their careers.  I would imagine that for a young college student (21-22) who is anyway staying at home with their parents, it would work for in their favor to have more internships available that pay $3-4/hour - but at least allows them to build up a work history in their field and gain experience when they apply for full time positions.

RubySlippers

Well education does matter say you go to our local county technical school program PTEC and get a credential as a truck driver in the current market they are all being hired at over the minimum wage by a good amount a friend did and walked out getting paid a training wage of $12 an hour plus benefits and after a year will go to $16 an hour at age 22. He wants to earn a hazard cargo commercial credential will allow him to earn ver $20 an hour.

So I would say education and job training is of value.

But I'm disabled a interesting number for Saint Petersburg College a regional accredited school in 2009 they tracked graduates among the disabled people warning a bachelors degree over three years only 16% had any kind of job including part-time. Now I would think that shows an issue if one earns a degree in say banking and you can't get a job in banking. In this case its also one of the few programs in that in the country as well.

But back to the topic if a college graduate can't even get a minimum wage job if disabled its not only the minimum wage but for an average High School graduate its a factor.

Love And Submission

I see a problem with this on the company side.

If they do raise minimum wage and you cut jobs , the people who would work the jobs you cut are going to have to live off the government which means you'll have to pay higher taxes.

So really by trying to screw others you're just screwing yourself.   I also love that these same people will say others are lazy and don't want to work when they're one who cut their jobs. It's such a foolish endeavor.

Even if we don't raise minimum wage  , people making minimum wage will have to rely on the government to survive because the whole purpose of raising
minimum wage now is  that people can't survive.


IF you want to get people off the government dole , give them jobs or don't and stop complaining.




Discord: SouthOfHeaven#3454

Trieste

Quote from: ValthazarElite on March 20, 2013, 04:05:45 PM
Ruby, you make some good points.  The main reason I brought this issue up is because I feel a lot of younger workers (college students) seem to overwhelmingly support the minimum wage increases, when in reality, it makes it difficult for them to start off their careers.  I would imagine that for a young college student (21-22) who is anyway staying at home with their parents, it would work for in their favor to have more internships available that pay $3-4/hour - but at least allows them to build up a work history in their field and gain experience when they apply for full time positions.

I gather from this that you are under the impression that internships are generally paid. Nearly every internship I've come across personally is unpaid - the benefit for the student or the worker is given entirely in 'work experience'. In fact, it's considered a huge deal at both the universities I've attended to be offered paid internships. I managed to land one of these coveted positions myself after a very competitive hiring process - my pay works out to about $6/hour if I work only the minimum number of hours (20 hours) I'm asked to work for my internship. Most weeks, I work at least 1.5 times that (which means my pay per hour drops to just over $4/hour at best, for 30 hours) and on weeks when there are school holidays or no class, the expectation is that I will spend more than twice that at my internship (45 hours - or about $2.75 an hour). These positions are available, and probably will continue to be available despite any minimum wage laws, because they are not subject to minimum wage laws.

When the POTUS brought up the minimum wage hike in his SOTU, he mentioned the poverty line. I'm curious about your position on that. President Obama's stance was that one should not be under the national poverty line if one is working a full time job. Am I understanding correctly that your position is along the lines of, "Well, you might be under the poverty line but at least you're not at zero income"?

And, while you're approaching this from the perspective of economics, what does the federal poverty line mean in terms of pure economics as far as you can tell?

OutoftheDust

Quote from: RubySlippers on March 20, 2013, 03:49:31 PM
Well as a disabled person I would say ,with other hard to get employed groups, the minimum wage hurts me at least. Look at it from an employers point of view I'm in a wheelchair and have other issues such as I can't multitask or perform complex work. I'm a risk to hire, now if I could take say in Florida instead of $7.79 for say $5.79 per hour why shouldn't I be able to?

As I see it working gives three things one needs to get better work later:

1. A credible work record I'm self-employed now so to the workplace I have no work history.

2. References again a big issue for me.

3. Gaining meaningful skills to areas of work supported by the first two.

Its getting one foot in the door that is key, for young workers and others you can't even get that foot in the door it seems.

That sets a fairly bad precedent for persons with almost any disability. There is a reason employers should not be allowed to discriminate in certain fields, and that reason is because when you let them, they will.

RubySlippers

Quote from: OutoftheDust on March 20, 2013, 06:09:36 PM
That sets a fairly bad precedent for persons with almost any disability. There is a reason employers should not be allowed to discriminate in certain fields, and that reason is because when you let them, they will.

And if you can't get a job?

Its odd as a Busker I earn decent money but sometimes all I get is for an hour, two gigs, is $5.00 but that is okay I can make a good deal over that to.  But to me and a lot of others getting a work history and the things I noted and a reliable $5.79 would be great do that say 20 hours and Busk I would have it pretty good.

Your idea of fairness is nice but doesn't fix the issues if your disabled your far less likely to have any decent job.

Caehlim

I'll jump in on this conversation later. I'd hoped to have time to write a post this morning, but it's time for me to go work.

I'll provide one thought for now. Your arguments are based on theory when practical evidence is readily available. Have you looked at Australia's situation?

Will discuss further tonight. This looks like a very interesting discussion.
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

OutoftheDust

#9
Quote from: RubySlippers on March 20, 2013, 06:30:46 PM
And if you can't get a job?

Its odd as a Busker I earn decent money but sometimes all I get is for an hour, two gigs, is $5.00 but that is okay I can make a good deal over that to.  But to me and a lot of others getting a work history and the things I noted and a reliable $5.79 would be great do that say 20 hours and Busk I would have it pretty good.

Your idea of fairness is nice but doesn't fix the issues if your disabled your far less likely to have any decent job.

There are many disabled folks with many different problems. They're not lepers to the job market: the job market just sucks, period. It's kind of like the situation with pre-existing conditions for insurance companies. Is it worse for an insurance company to offer a policy to someone with a pre-existing condition that will almost certainly result in a claim? Yes. But we should make them do it, because the alternative is nightmarishly Ayn Randian. Imagine a society that punished people for being differently-abled, and was unapologetic due to some half-ass economic justification.

Seriously though. Getting a job as a young person sucks. I won't argue that much.

Valthazar

#10
Quote from: Trieste on March 20, 2013, 06:06:58 PM
I gather from this that you are under the impression that internships are generally paid. Nearly every internship I've come across personally is unpaid - the benefit for the student or the worker is given entirely in 'work experience'. In fact, it's considered a huge deal at both the universities I've attended to be offered paid internships. I managed to land one of these coveted positions myself after a very competitive hiring process - my pay works out to about $6/hour if I work only the minimum number of hours (20 hours) I'm asked to work for my internship. Most weeks, I work at least 1.5 times that (which means my pay per hour drops to just over $4/hour at best, for 30 hours) and on weeks when there are school holidays or no class, the expectation is that I will spend more than twice that at my internship (45 hours - or about $2.75 an hour). These positions are available, and probably will continue to be available despite any minimum wage laws, because they are not subject to minimum wage laws.

Trieste, thank you for your input - and congratulations on getting the competitive internship.  Because this discussion involves wages, I was referring specifically to paid, waged internships.  I am assuming that the internship you are involved with is not paid hourly as a wage, but is actually paid as a contract - irrelevant of the actual hours worked.

Also, I could be wrong, but based on your description, it appears that these internships are taking place within the university itself?  I work at a university, and am very familiar with these types of internships that operate on a yearly contract.  Again, I could be mistaken about your situation.  From my experience, the majority of paid internships that take place with private businesses go through their standard payroll, and as a result, the worker is generally assigned the lowest minimum hourly wage permitted by law.  Many colleges and universities can avoid this loophole because they market their internships as educational and learning opportunities or work studies, whereas private businesses are under a lot more scrutiny since work is still work.  Again, I apologize if this was an incorrect assumption about your situation.

Quote from: Trieste on March 20, 2013, 06:06:58 PMWhen the POTUS brought up the minimum wage hike in his SOTU, he mentioned the poverty line. I'm curious about your position on that. President Obama's stance was that one should not be under the national poverty line if one is working a full time job. Am I understanding correctly that your position is along the lines of, "Well, you might be under the poverty line but at least you're not at zero income"?

Yes, that is partially what I am asserting, but it is not as simple as that.  First of all, we need to realize that the concept of an externally-defined 'poverty line' (meaning, by an agency outside of the free market - aka government), is a largely arbitrary demarcation of income.  President Obama's stance that  one should not be under the national poverty line if one is working a full time job is one of noble intentions - and one that from a purely philosophical perspective, many people would agree with.  However, I make the case that elevating the minimum wage to accomplish this will actually serve a counterproductive purpose, and result in more unemployed Americans, rather than impoverished Americans.  Before I explain my reasoning further, ask yourself which is a more ideal situation - to be entirely unemployed and reliant on government aid, or to make very minimal income, and use government aid sparingly?

The reality is that by elevating the minimum wage, many business owners are responding by cutting jobs - since there is no corresponding increase in revenue to support this sudden 'forced' increase in wages.  As a result, many of the current group of Americans who are living "below the poverty line" according to President Obama, will suddenly see lay-offs.  As a result, no longer will they be impoverished, they will be flat out unemployed. 

What we are seeing in this decade is rampant expansion of government welfare programs.  47 million Americans are now completely reliant on food stamps, and that number will continue to increase if the minimum wage continues to increase.

Quote from: Trieste on March 20, 2013, 06:06:58 PMAnd, while you're approaching this from the perspective of economics, what does the federal poverty line mean in terms of pure economics as far as you can tell?

As a pure definition, the "absolute poverty line" is the "threshold below which families or individuals are considered to be lacking the resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living; having insufficient income to provide the food, shelter and clothing needed to preserve health."

It is important to realize that the 'poverty line' is largely a subjective measure arbitrarily created by the Department of Health and Human Services.  After all, the international poverty line is only $1 a day, so already we see that the poverty line is largely a subjective measure of lifestyle that is not influenced by free-market forces.

Valthazar

Quote from: DTW on March 20, 2013, 05:14:41 PM
I see a problem with this on the company side.

If they do raise minimum wage and you cut jobs , the people who would work the jobs you cut are going to have to live off the government which means you'll have to pay higher taxes.

So really by trying to screw others you're just screwing yourself.   I also love that these same people will say others are lazy and don't want to work when they're one who cut their jobs. It's such a foolish endeavor.

Even if we don't raise minimum wage  , people making minimum wage will have to rely on the government to survive because the whole purpose of raising
minimum wage now is  that people can't survive.


IF you want to get people off the government dole , give them jobs or don't and stop complaining.

Hi DTW - thanks for your input.

I think the statement that I bolded in your post is the point I'm trying to make.  I have many friends who are very passionate about 'empowering the 99%,' support Occupy Wallstreet, and believe that that it is the top 1% who are out to get us.  The reality is that these initiatives to raise the minimum wage are targeting that exact type of audience who don't have a fundamental understanding of how an economy creates jobs, and how wages are set in the free-market. 

I certainly agree with you that many of the unemployed people today are not at all lazy.  Many of them are merely the victims of circumstance, and it is unfortunate that so many people are unable to find work and be independent.


ReijiTabibito

Throwing my hat in here...hopefully this doesn't bite me in the ass.  Valz, your points are well-spoken and understood, but there's an undercurrent that's running through them that fails to rise to the surface.  That undercurrent is, at the end, the profit of the company.  You noted, quite correctly, that a raise in the minimum wage would cause a ripple effect in the economy, even in companies that might not have minimum wage positions - regardless of current pay, the MW raise will cause required pay to go up pretty much everywhere.  Because of the increased cost of payroll, companies will be willing to, at the very least, hire fewer people, or like some after Obama's reelection, fire people because of supposed 'reduced economy' and 'another recession' - which I haven't heard about beyond the talk about next years sequester-enforced budget cuts (which is a joke, but this isn't the thread for it).

There is, however, a critical piece of the puzzle that you are ignoring...or perhaps rightly dismissing.  That piece is company net profit, and high-rank pay.  Yes, the national poverty line, or any poverty line, is a vaguely defined thing put out by a government agency.  But you can't tell me that someone living in this country to the tune of over a few hundred thousand dollars a year is impoverished.  I should know, I grew up for eighteen years in one such house.  There were school years where I begged my parents to not buy me new shoes so I could fit in better.

Now, I understand - a company's primary responsibility is to its shareholders, and that responsibility isn't very well fulfilled if the company goes under.  But you're telling me that, in a company I just pulled out of my ass for this point, ValueCo Inc - which has a net profit of $5 billion a year - isn't going to be able to afford the cost of hiring a dozen new people at, say, $60k a year (someone on this board noted that the average family of four can live comfortably on around $70k/year).  I call bull.

Or maybe you don't want to pay that much out of the gate.  Okay, no problem.  Give them $40k/year to start with and then boost it up to $60k in little bits over the next...let's say decade to ease the math.  That's $2k in raises per year per person.

The ultimate problem isn't anything economical.  It's a question of values and ethics.  And the people making the big money have decided that they're going with the 'more money for me' path.  It seems to be all they ever talk about anymore these days - Obama is punishing the rich, he's declaring war on success, (and to quote Yahtzee) blahdeblahdeblah.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, writer of the famous Gulag Archipelago, likened nations and corporations to people (not in the Citizens United sense, thankfully).  Each man, he explains, is born with two lungs.  So it is with nations - one is rights.  But there is another lung, and it is called duty.  And the problems we are seeing with our nation today largely derives from the fact that those who have the responsibility at the top don't want to do their duty, they want to have their cake and eat it too, and f**k all the rest of us plebeians.

A lot of society is going this way - the me-first attitude, the lack of vision, the worries about 'what will this look like next quarter?'  Anyone and everyone who knows me IRL knows I'm an enormous fan of the Daily Show.  There was a woman on the other week, promoting a book about the personal finance industry - name currently escapes me.  She said two things, one of which I'll state directly here, and the other which I gleaned from her conversation w/Jon.  The direct one is that the stock market has recalibrated itself to operate on the short term - stocks and bonds and all those wonderful things traded by the Gorden Gekkos of the world are now evaluated based on their performance now, rather than how it will be doing in ten years.

The thing that I gleaned from her speech, a common thing, is that fifty percent of all American households are living in and around the poverty line as currently stands.  Now, I'm not a mathematician, but I know half of America is 150 million people.  But what I'm hearing from the personal finance industry is that the problem isn't money, it's that people don't know how to handle it.

Now, I can believe three families of that 150 million don't take good care of their finances.  I can believe a hundred families.  I can believe a few thousand.

But you can't look me in the eye and say with a straight face that all 150 million Americans can't write up a budget (something CONGRESS can't certainly do, and I think your average Americans have more political fortitude and brains than a Congressman), save a little extra for emergencies, and responsibly handle money.

...okay, you can, but then you're obviously a psychopath so why should I be listening to you?

I'm married.  My wife and I have been so for almost five wonderful years.  For almost four of those, we've shared an apartment.  We do easy financial-saving things like: set a food budget, every week, and stick to it (after a couple of months of experimenting where to draw the lines); the gas savings we get from shopping at the local chain supermarket - we go and fill up at the same time so we both save on gas; if we go out on a Friday night, we sit down and see if we've got any gift cards for a restaurant we like (and find one from Mrs. Reiji's third uncle Jeffrey who gave it to us three Christmases ago until a pile of books).

You could solve the problem by not raising the minimum wage.  But that would leave a lot of people still unemployed, and quite a few impoverished.

Or you could solve the problem by telling the guys that can throw down $50k for a plate dinner to hear The Mormon speak about how he hates poor people that they can live without their double-digit million income, and stop acting like you're three and your favorite toy was taken away!


PS.  You may fire away, Gridley.

Trieste

First, straight-up, formal economic theory is not my strong point. I took this thread as an opportunity to ask questions and try to learn more about it, so when I ask questions, here, they're not meant to be leading or didactic. I hope that has been clear and will remain clear. ::)

Quote from: ValthazarElite on March 20, 2013, 08:58:28 PM
Trieste, thank you for your input - and congratulations on getting the competitive internship.  Because this discussion involves wages, I was referring specifically to paid, waged internships.  I am assuming that the internship you are involved with is not paid hourly as a wage, but is actually paid as a contract - irrelevant of the actual hours worked.

Also, I could be wrong, but based on your description, it appears that these internships are taking place within the university itself?  I work at a university, and am very familiar with these types of internships that operate on a yearly contract.  Again, I could be mistaken about your situation.  From my experience, the majority of paid internships that take place with private businesses go through their standard payroll, and as a result, the worker is generally assigned the lowest minimum hourly wage permitted by law.  Many colleges and universities can avoid this loophole because they market their internships as educational and learning opportunities or work studies, whereas private businesses are under a lot more scrutiny since work is still work.  Again, I apologize if this was an incorrect assumption about your situation.

Thanks. I was very proud to land it, although the learning experience has been... *grunts* Let's just say I'm not learning as much about a working forensics lab as I had hoped, and leave at that. I call the department where I work, "Where ambition goes to die." However, that aside, the work takes place in a functioning forensic biology lab, rather than on campus. I'm a master's student, and my actual paycheck comes from the university itself. I do know that the university contracts with the lab, but to what extent I'm not sure. And I bow to your knowledge regarding how private businesses handle paid internships, as I have no experience there.

I do know that without significant support from others (i.e. my husband's pay most of all), I would not be able to maintain a domicile without at least two other roomies - probably three would be more realistic.

Quote from: ValthazarElite on March 20, 2013, 08:58:28 PM
Yes, that is partially what I am asserting, but it is not as simple as that.  First of all, we need to realize that the concept of an externally-defined 'poverty line' (meaning, by an agency outside of the free market - aka government), is a largely arbitrary demarcation of income.  President Obama's stance that  one should not be under the national poverty line if one is working a full time job is one of noble intentions - and one that from a purely philosophical perspective, many people would agree with.  However, I make the case that elevating the minimum wage to accomplish this will actually serve a counterproductive purpose, and result in more unemployed Americans, rather than impoverished Americans.  Before I explain my reasoning further, ask yourself which is a more ideal situation - to be entirely unemployed and reliant on government aid, or to make very minimal income, and use government aid sparingly?

This seems like, for lack of a better term, a false choice, especially in the current economic climate. Since we're touching on my personal situation - and I don't mind doing so with the caveat that I acknowledge I'm not necessarily everyman - I am making minimal income and I am still not using government aid very sparingly. In fact, I would be making more use of government aid if I qualified, because currently I'm having to pay for several things out of my student loans. My student loans are low-interest Department of Education loans, and it makes very little fiscal sense for me as an individual to continue to pay for things like food out of those loans if I qualified for, for instance, food stamps. In the current MassHealth system (a.k.a. RomneyCare), full-time students are exempt from state health insurance subsidies no matter how low their income is, so when my student loans come due, I will then be paying interest on the health insurance costs I had to pay out of student loans.

In short, the only difference between being minimally employed and being completely unemployed, for me, is not how much I make use of government assistance but which way I'm going to make use of government assistance. I still use it fairly heavily, and tbh I would use it more if I could, if it meant I could squirrel some of my wages away for the harder times that I know will come along, when I know that there will be no more aid forthcoming. I would use it for a safety net if I could manage it... and while that's smart for me as an individual, it doesn't seem very efficient as a use for government funds.

Quote from: ValthazarElite on March 20, 2013, 08:58:28 PM
The reality is that by elevating the minimum wage, many business owners are responding by cutting jobs - since there is no corresponding increase in revenue to support this sudden 'forced' increase in wages.  As a result, many of the current group of Americans who are living "below the poverty line" according to President Obama, will suddenly see lay-offs.  As a result, no longer will they be impoverished, they will be flat out unemployed. 

The theory with which I'm familiar, and the script that is followed by liberal politicians in general (I identify politically as an independent, but you can't grow up in Massachusetts without picking up some serious liberalese) is that there will be an increase in revenue, because more people will be able to afford more stuff. The logic pans out for me as follows:

* Minimum wage increases, and employers will need to pay their employees more.
* Because the wage has just increased, employers do not yet see a bump in revenues. They lay people off to keep their cost of labor at the same percentage of revenues.
* But, since those who are still employed have more money at their disposal, they spend their money (the middle and lower classes are not necessarily well-known for their large savings, for instance).
* Revenue increases, allowing employers to rehire those laid off, or new hires.
* New hires continue to spend more money due to higher wages, revenue continues to increase, more employees can be hired who then spend more... etc.

I tried looking up historical data as a quick test to this theory, and I was interested to come across this chart on Fox News. I went with Fox because they have a well-publicized, strong bias against raising the minimum wage - in fact, the article containing that chart specifically makes points against raising the minimum wage. I don't think this chart is a very good chart, since firstly it doesn't go back very far at all, and secondly it's comparing minimum wage to unemployment during a time period that is notorious for its high unemployment that had little-to-nothing to do with minimum wage and a whole lot to do with economy-go-'splodey. What I did find interesting was the first part of that chart - from '03 to '07, minimum wage remains flat and unemployment sorta zig-zags in a generally downward trend. The zig-zags look too small to be statistically significant, so I'm willing to call it a downward trend. Hard to call it a correlative relationship, hard to say it isn't correlative. I need more power data!

... which is, unfortunately, hard to come by, at least as far as I can tell. My Googling and Google Scholar-ing turned up with nothing that gave overall unemployment rates as compared to minimum wages over the last 50ish years that I felt I could decipher and interpret appropriately. There was this chart that compared teenage unemployment to minimum wage - and there doesn't seem to be a strong correlation there, especially when you look at the wage raise in the late 90s that is accompanied by a continued downward trend in unemployment. However, the figure is not well-sourced, and I'm extremely hesitant to base any conclusions off of it.

So, in short, I don't know. I can't support or reject my hypothesis based on what I have.

Quote from: ValthazarElite on March 20, 2013, 08:58:28 PM
What we are seeing in this decade is rampant expansion of government welfare programs.  47 million Americans are now completely reliant on food stamps, and that number will continue to increase if the minimum wage continues to increase.

As a pure definition, the "absolute poverty line" is the "threshold below which families or individuals are considered to be lacking the resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living; having insufficient income to provide the food, shelter and clothing needed to preserve health."

It is important to realize that the 'poverty line' is largely a subjective measure arbitrarily created by the Department of Health and Human Services.  After all, the international poverty line is only $1 a day, so already we see that the poverty line is largely a subjective measure of lifestyle that is not influenced by free-market forces.

I think I would put forth the idea that a national poverty line in the US is not quite so much subjective as just local. While the international poverty line is much lower, it functionally must be much lower to cover countries where the population lives in conditions that would get a US domicile condemned. I don't know that I would hold up the international poverty line as an example of free market forces, due to the market being interfered with by international governments, wars, etc. My definition of free market might be different than yours - actually, it probably is, come to think of it. I would, as an example, not consider something like a famine to be part of the free market, but an interfering agency that disrupts the market.

It's late and I've run out of replying steam but hopefully I've given some food for thought.

Kythia

I think a point that you're missing is that, even in the USs at will employment, jobs aren't 100% fungible.  I've never worked fast food so this specific example may fail.  But lets imagine "Kythia's Burger" requires two people on the till, one on the griddle and one to fan me and feed me peeled grapes.  I currently pay them $1 per hour (well, less expenses.  And its actually scrip redeemable in the company store rather than real money.  But you get the point.) 

Minimum wage comes in, I'm aghast, but I suck it up and pay them $7 or whatever it is.  So that's an extra $24/hour staffing costs.  But I can't make any of them unemployed, Kythia's burgers needs four employees because thats the number of people needed to do all the jobs that need doing.  The raise in staffing costs comes out of my profits, I can't recoup it by unemployment.  Sure, not everyone makes the kind of eleven digit profits I do so some companies will end up going under, not every company has a fixed staffing requirement so some will be able to lay off.  But if a company CAN lay off then that just means it was overstaffed in the first place.  Inefficient.  And the companies that go under will be replaced.

There's no general consensus, AFAIK, about whether minimum wage does increase unemployment (I seem to remember reading an interesting study comparing two US states that bordered and had different minimum wages but I cant remember enough details to Google it) for precisely those reasons.  Jobs aren't simply a function of profits, they're also a function of workload.
242037

Serephino

I can understand why this would be bad for a small business.  My mom works for a small business that already has trouble paying bills.  Although, I do remember from the last raise her saying something about filing to be exempt from it.  It is my understanding that there is a limit that if a business nets less than, the minimum wage laws don't apply.  The owners just have to fill out the paperwork and get approved.

Larger businesses can afford it, but as it has been pointed out, they just don't want to.  The essence of the problem was best shown by something I saw on the Tonight Show.  Jay Leno was doing his Headlines thing, and one of them was a newspaper page with two articles.  One of them was about a company laying off a few thousand workers.  Just under it was an article about that very same company giving its executives very large bonuses.  Gee, I wonder where the money they saved on payroll went....

My boyfriend and I are among those just barely scraping by.  I'm disabled, but he works in fast food.  We rely on my food stamps more than I'd like to.  We have no savings.  We rely on heating assistance to stay warm in the winter.  When the oil we have runs out, we are so screwed if it hasn't warmed up, because we have nothing to buy more oil with.  The month isn't over, and I have $3.89 in my bank account.  My boyfriend has cobwebs in his wallet.  This means the gas in the car has to last until his next paycheck, or I have to ask my mom for money, which I really hate.

The sequester, a rant for another thread, is making huge cuts to the very programs we depend so much on.  The walls are closing in, and really, what are we supposed to do?  It's getting to the point where it will be better to have no job at all than a low paying one because income limits on government programs are going to drop because of the cuts.  What we want is for it to be better to have a job that pays enough for people to not need government assistance.

Callie Del Noire

The problem is.. there is a TRUE problem with wealth inequity.

Wealth Inequality in America

I don't think that raising the minimum wage law will fix it. I do think there is an intrinsic disconnect with some of the corporate leadership of our country. There is this awesome rush for lower production costs.. yet I've yet to see goods, services and materials go down in any tangible amount.

I don't think the minimum wage law will fix the problem. I think however that instead of corporate kick backs, tax loopholes and laws that endorse outsourcing need to be fixed. You can't tell me that if we fixed the laws that make it easy to dodge the corporate tax breaks and made it so that if they want these breaks back.. invest in the country. In the end.. it will bring development, growth and yes.. if planned out right.. profit for the companies.

Example: We are the creators of the internet and developed a massive amount the foundation technology behind it. Yet our infrastructure for the internet is literally falling apart in some areas within our country and we don't even rank in the top 10 countries anymore.  Why? Because every penny you put into expanding your infrastructure is a penny that can be written off as profit. Profit is good.. failure to do your proper due diligence and upkeep is going to ultimately bite us in the ass. That is where we are at.

We are being led by a group of planners, CEOs and boards who follow one credo. 'Greed is good'.

The very concept of long term planning, investment and profit planned for long term growth and expansion. Today if you want to grow.. you buy out your rivals (Like AT&Ts efforts to buy out Version last year)

TaintedAndDelish

#17
Funny, more money doesn't make you rich just like how a longer staff doesn't make you a better lover. I think that most folks, myself included are just not very good at investing and managing money as compared to those who run huge, successful businesses. For this reason, I don't think that higher minimum wage will make those who are in need any less broke. (In the long run)

I would rather see the government offer classes in investing, managing money and running businesses than raising minimum wage.

Also, I think education is only one factor. Abilities, motivation, health and so on are among others.

Not to get off topic, but I've often wondered if it is even possible for everyone in a country to be well off, or if a percentage needs to be poor. ( my reasoning here is that the rich are wealthy at the expense of the poor - I'm not certain if this is truth or a fallacy )

Kythia

Quote from: TaintedAndDelish on March 21, 2013, 12:04:24 AM
Not to get off topic, but I've often wondered if it is even possible for everyone in a country to be well off, or if a percentage needs to be poor. ( my reasoning here is that the rich are wealthy at the expense of the poor - I'm not certain if this is truth or a fallacy )

"Poor" isn't a well defined term.  With no disrespect meant to anyone who's worried about money, the fact you're on this site shows you have access to a computer, electricity, etc and so, in vast swathes of the world, would be considered "rich".  Yes, its possible for everyone in a country to be relatively rich in world terms.  In terms of the country?  Well, the question doesn't make much sense.  50% of the population are going to be in the bottom half of the population and the top 1% will have more money than anyone else.
242037

TaintedAndDelish

Quote from: Kythia on March 21, 2013, 01:02:18 AM
"Poor" isn't a well defined term.  With no disrespect meant to anyone who's worried about money, the fact you're on this site shows you have access to a computer, electricity, etc and so, in vast swathes of the world, would be considered "rich".  Yes, its possible for everyone in a country to be relatively rich in world terms.  In terms of the country?  Well, the question doesn't make much sense.  50% of the population are going to be in the bottom half of the population and the top 1% will have more money than anyone else.

Obviously, there will always be some with more resources than others - unless you live in a society where resources are distributed evenly. My question was about whether its possible for everyone to be well off. Let me try to define well off objectively: having a nice sturdy, secure home, ample food, good health care, enough money and resources to really enjoy life and live easy. ( if you argue that these are subjective, then you are missing the point that I'm trying to make. )

It seems that in order to make a profit, one person needs to win the deal, and the other needs to loose - resulting in inequality.

Valthazar

#20
Quote from: Kythia on March 20, 2013, 10:29:57 PM
I think a point that you're missing is that, even in the USs at will employment, jobs aren't 100% fungible.  I've never worked fast food so this specific example may fail.  But lets imagine "Kythia's Burger" requires two people on the till, one on the griddle and one to fan me and feed me peeled grapes.  I currently pay them $1 per hour (well, less expenses.  And its actually scrip redeemable in the company store rather than real money.  But you get the point.) 

Minimum wage comes in, I'm aghast, but I suck it up and pay them $7 or whatever it is.  So that's an extra $24/hour staffing costs.  But I can't make any of them unemployed, Kythia's burgers needs four employees because thats the number of people needed to do all the jobs that need doing.  The raise in staffing costs comes out of my profits, I can't recoup it by unemployment.  Sure, not everyone makes the kind of eleven digit profits I do so some companies will end up going under, not every company has a fixed staffing requirement so some will be able to lay off.  But if a company CAN lay off then that just means it was overstaffed in the first place.  Inefficient.  And the companies that go under will be replaced.

There's no general consensus, AFAIK, about whether minimum wage does increase unemployment (I seem to remember reading an interesting study comparing two US states that bordered and had different minimum wages but I cant remember enough details to Google it) for precisely those reasons.  Jobs aren't simply a function of profits, they're also a function of workload.

Kythia, I see the point you are trying to make, and if we are talking about efficiency, then I would be the first proponent of it - but what you are describing is not a drive to greater efficiency.  You are correct that laying off employees in some businesses as a response to a rise in the minimum wage is an effort to increase "efficiency" from a profits perspective. 

Let me give you an example:  If I am running an auto repair shop, and I currently am employing 10 entry-level mechanics at $5.50/hour.  A minimum wage law is passed, and I am now required to pay $8/hour.  You may say that it "increases efficiency" for my "overstaffed" company to lay off 4 of my mechanics.  Now I've got 6 entry-level mechanics earning $8/hour.  Not only do I have a reduction in the number of employees (10 --> 6) with the same cost-loss for their salary, but now my productivity decreases as a company as well, since obviously 6 mechanics can accomplish less than 10 mechanics.

Of course, you can make the case that those 6 mechanics can work more - but again, is that truly increased productivity or efficiency?  You'd just be having fewer mechanics working longer hours, which brings with it many pros as well as cons.  This also goes back to my earlier point that minimum wage increases help out individuals with strong work experience and stable positions, and hurt entry-level workers and people with very little work experience. 

Valthazar

#21
Quote from: Trieste on March 20, 2013, 10:04:29 PMThanks. I was very proud to land it, although the learning experience has been... *grunts* Let's just say I'm not learning as much about a working forensics lab as I had hoped, and leave at that. I call the department where I work, "Where ambition goes to die." However, that aside, the work takes place in a functioning forensic biology lab, rather than on campus. I'm a master's student, and my actual paycheck comes from the university itself. I do know that the university contracts with the lab, but to what extent I'm not sure. And I bow to your knowledge regarding how private businesses handle paid internships, as I have no experience there.

I do know that without significant support from others (i.e. my husband's pay most of all), I would not be able to maintain a domicile without at least two other roomies - probably three would be more realistic.

This seems like, for lack of a better term, a false choice, especially in the current economic climate. Since we're touching on my personal situation - and I don't mind doing so with the caveat that I acknowledge I'm not necessarily everyman - I am making minimal income and I am still not using government aid very sparingly. In fact, I would be making more use of government aid if I qualified, because currently I'm having to pay for several things out of my student loans. My student loans are low-interest Department of Education loans, and it makes very little fiscal sense for me as an individual to continue to pay for things like food out of those loans if I qualified for, for instance, food stamps. In the current MassHealth system (a.k.a. RomneyCare), full-time students are exempt from state health insurance subsidies no matter how low their income is, so when my student loans come due, I will then be paying interest on the health insurance costs I had to pay out of student loans.

In short, the only difference between being minimally employed and being completely unemployed, for me, is not how much I make use of government assistance but which way I'm going to make use of government assistance. I still use it fairly heavily, and tbh I would use it more if I could, if it meant I could squirrel some of my wages away for the harder times that I know will come along, when I know that there will be no more aid forthcoming. I would use it for a safety net if I could manage it... and while that's smart for me as an individual, it doesn't seem very efficient as a use for government funds.

I think in your case, based on your career path, chances are very strong that you will one day find a steady job in your field.  Student loans are an unfortunate, but necessary, part of our lives nowadays. 

You make a good point when you say how it is only human nature to want to maximize use of the government funds, and avoid using your own money until it is absolutely necessary.  I know I am not speaking for everyone obviously, but many people on unemployment benefits develop a sense of complacency when they receive a steady check coming in from the government.  This actually relates to the point that I make just below.  While I believe (hope) most people who are unemployed are motivated to be self-sufficient, there is unfortunately a sizable segment of that population who become apathetic towards the system, and no longer take an active role to seek employment wherever it may exist.  As a result, I think it is very risky to assume that all people have a natural desire to seek out work.  The unfortunate reality is that once some people see how 'good' they have it on government benefits, they become a slave to that system simply due to a lack of desire to advance themselves.

Also, I think that your personal situation is not exactly the same, since you are receiving a specialized education, and will have tangible skills to offer an employer.  Even though you may be in tough times financially now, you are putting yourself in a good position for the future.

Quote from: Trieste on March 20, 2013, 10:04:29 PMThe theory with which I'm familiar, and the script that is followed by liberal politicians in general (I identify politically as an independent, but you can't grow up in Massachusetts without picking up some serious liberalese) is that there will be an increase in revenue, because more people will be able to afford more stuff. The logic pans out for me as follows:

* Minimum wage increases, and employers will need to pay their employees more.
* Because the wage has just increased, employers do not yet see a bump in revenues. They lay people off to keep their cost of labor at the same percentage of revenues.
* But, since those who are still employed have more money at their disposal, they spend their money (the middle and lower classes are not necessarily well-known for their large savings, for instance).
* Revenue increases, allowing employers to rehire those laid off, or new hires.
* New hires continue to spend more money due to higher wages, revenue continues to increase, more employees can be hired who then spend more... etc.

I think it's interesting that you mentioned this, and I understand your logic.  This is the same rationale that many conservatives use to justify middle-class tax cuts - the concept that it will increase the flow of money into businesses because of more spending.  I can't say I disagree with that line of reasoning, but I have some thoughts on this minimum wage proposal: 

First of all, try to put yourself in the position of the business owner when thinking about this - because contrary to what politicians say, it is private business owners who create jobs - not the government.  The business owner is trying to maximize his or her efficiency - meaning hire the LEAST number of people to comply with minimum wage increases, while at the same time, making sure that revenues don't take too much of a hit.  It is really a sweet/ideal balance based on the economic climate that a business is facing. 

It is indeed true that the people still employed by that company, who now receive a higher wage due to minimum wage increases, will receive more money, and thus put more money back into businesses through their spending.  And it is also true that this will correspondingly increase the company's profits.  Where I disagree with you is the idea that employers will naturally choose to rehire all of those laid off, or hire new workers.  The reality is, minimum wage increases cause businesses to enter 'safe mode,' and if they somehow manage to maintain profits with minimal workers, they are very reluctant to take a risk and hire again.  Just put yourself in an owner's shoes - if you faced really tough economic times (and minimum wage increases), and you were forced to lay off many employees, wouldn't you count your blessings if you still managed to turn a profit despite that?  It is very risky for the owner to be extra ambitious and seek even greater profits by taking a huge risk of shelling out more money to hire new employees.

The reality is that most "good" jobs today are remnants of a time before this recession hit.  Very few of these are created during tough times.

Ack Arg


I spent six years at university, mainly studying econ.

Short version? Citizens, usually starving ones, get together and insist on being able to eat. Citizens decide to create a minimum wage. That wage should be the one you can live on. It's not, but that's the idea.

Being poor? Well that's you being hungry, ignorant or sick and the food, knowledge and medicine being there but you're not allowed to have it. We put lots of work into making sure people stay hungry, sick and stupid. Advertising isn't there so you make informed choices in a market, just the opposite. My ancestors turned up in North America because someone took their crops from them and sold them elsewhere. Pick you own example for medicine.

Economics is just about how you want to organize your society.

Most wealth (read money, it's okay, we can say the word money) is just a power relationship. So why is it that Blank person gets to decide he's getting a private jet with a solid gold bathroom? Well it has a lot to do with lots of other people not getting to make those decisions. That's power.



So what about VE's question about economic perspectives about the what and if of minimum wage laws? Well it's all about what you think economics is. You can take other angles inside "mainstream" economics and bring up the ultimatum game or something. You can go find something crazy. Mostly though you can just play magic tricks with the arguments:


"Because a great number of overqualified people find the jobs offered to be demeaning, they need incentives like wage increases just to consider applying for them. Companies from walmart to jim's apple stand can't seem to leave the race to the bottom mentality, meaning they consistantly recruit people that don't just to the "minimum" but can't be said to be doing their job at all."

"If we continue to allow minimum wage to be an unlivable wage and let it get worse over time as it falls behind inflation, we're going to see some of the most important jobs in our nation fall into the hands of the least motivated, least qualified, least ethical and least productive."

Then you make up a graph to go with it.



Fun Trick: Ask an economics class if watching a video on your computer is production or consumption. Keeps them busy long enough for the aspirin to kick in and take the edge off the previous night's recreation.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

Quote from: ValthazarElite on March 21, 2013, 06:25:44 AM
I think in your case, based on your career path, chances are very strong that you will one day find a steady job in your field.  Student loans are an unfortunate, but necessary, part of our lives nowadays. 

You make a good point when you say how it is only human nature to want to maximize use of the government funds, and avoid using your own money until it is absolutely necessary.  I know I am not speaking for everyone obviously, but many people on unemployment benefits develop a sense of complacency when they receive a steady check coming in from the government.  This actually relates to the point that I make just below.  While I believe (hope) most people who are unemployed are motivated to be self-sufficient, there is unfortunately a sizable segment of that population who become apathetic towards the system, and no longer take an active role to seek employment wherever it may exist.  As a result, I think it is very risky to assume that all people have a natural desire to seek out work.  The unfortunate reality is that once some people see how 'good' they have it on government benefits, they become a slave to that system simply due to a lack of desire to advance themselves.

Also, I think that your personal situation is not exactly the same, since you are receiving a specialized education, and will have tangible skills to offer an employer.  Even though you may be in tough times financially now, you are putting yourself in a good position for the future.

I think it's interesting that you mentioned this, and I understand your logic.  This is the same rationale that many conservatives use to justify middle-class tax cuts - the concept that it will increase the flow of money into businesses because of more spending.  I can't say I disagree with that line of reasoning, but I have some thoughts on this minimum wage proposal: 

First of all, try to put yourself in the position of the business owner when thinking about this - because contrary to what politicians say, it is private business owners who create jobs - not the government.  The business owner is trying to maximize his or her efficiency - meaning hire the LEAST number of people to comply with minimum wage increases, while at the same time, making sure that revenues don't take too much of a hit.  It is really a sweet/ideal balance based on the economic climate that a business is facing. 

It is indeed true that the people still employed by that company, who now receive a higher wage due to minimum wage increases, will receive more money, and thus put more money back into businesses through their spending.  And it is also true that this will correspondingly increase the company's profits.  Where I disagree with you is the idea that employers will naturally choose to rehire all of those laid off, or hire new workers.  The reality is, minimum wage increases cause businesses to enter 'safe mode,' and if they somehow manage to maintain profits with minimal workers, they are very reluctant to take a risk and hire again.  Just put yourself in an owner's shoes - if you faced really tough economic times (and minimum wage increases), and you were forced to lay off many employees, wouldn't you count your blessings if you still managed to turn a profit despite that?  It is very risky for the owner to be extra ambitious and seek even greater profits by taking a huge risk of shelling out more money to hire new employees.

The reality is that most "good" jobs today are remnants of a time before this recession hit.  Very few of these are created during tough times.


Oh, I ought to take some time later and respond to this but the short version:

VE started by saying he wanted to keep this as an economics discussion but his post seems to take a lot of... not conservative... I think you call it right ring assumptions. Especially the bits about people on the social welfare tit. If it's an economic argument and not a moral and political one then the question is how much does it cost and what is the effect? Like, single mothers raising their childrens in slightly less terrible condition... which as someone that has to live in the same world as thems childrens I prefer.

I'm not saying you have to have hard data to make a speculative point but it just seems like you're edging into another territory there.

And private business creating jobs not the government... Come on, we all took a twentieth century history course at some point in highschool. We've got no excuse to play that game. Even if we took it at face value we'd have to mention the government creating the market, the currency, the infrastructure and lots of people walking around wanting to do jobs in the first place.

If you want to take the position of the people that do the work, they might tell you they want to fix machines, build houses and bake bread except for some reason there are bunch of people that have to say "okay, you're allowed to do your job now, but only on my schedule and in the way I want you to.

Let's not go putting labour or private business or anyone up as The person that built the highway. Lots of people built the highway.
\
Returning after long... long hiatus. May be slow to find a rhythm.

Valthazar

#23
Quote from: Ack Arg on March 21, 2013, 07:51:38 AM
Oh, I ought to take some time later and respond to this but the short version:

VE started by saying he wanted to keep this as an economics discussion but his post seems to take a lot of... not conservative... I think you call it right ring assumptions. Especially the bits about people on the social welfare tit. If it's an economic argument and not a moral and political one then the question is how much does it cost and what is the effect? Like, single mothers raising their childrens in slightly less terrible condition... which as someone that has to live in the same world as thems childrens I prefer.

Ack Arg, how is what I said regarding the recent expansion of social welfare not an economics issue?  If we are committed to maintaining the United States as a free-market, capitalist economy, then there certainly is a major economics problem with an increasing demographic reliant on a 3rd party (government) that is outside the realm of private business.  I imagine that regardless of one's political orientation, we all as Americans can say that it is undesirable to be reliant on the government for support, and the ideal is to be self-sufficient with a job, correct?  The US operates on the assumption that all commodities and services are produced by the free-market, thus, it is problematic to our economy when an increasing amount of wealth is funneled away from private enterprise - and more and more Americans are losing their independence.

Regarding your comment about single mothers:  Wouldn't you agree with me, that regardless if someone is a parent or not, the ideal is to live a country with maximal opportunities for employment?  The reason the US is the wealthiest country in the world is because we embrace the principles of capitalism, and wealth generation through private enterprise.  If we are suggesting that it is desirable for single mothers to be dependent on the government for support, we are deviating from the economic principles that made this country so powerful.

Quote from: Ack Arg on March 21, 2013, 07:51:38 AMI'm not saying you have to have hard data to make a speculative point but it just seems like you're edging into another territory there.

And private business creating jobs not the government... Come on, we all took a twentieth century history course at some point in highschool. We've got no excuse to play that game. Even if we took it at face value we'd have to mention the government creating the market, the currency, the infrastructure and lots of people walking around wanting to do jobs in the first place.

I'm not sure what hard data you are looking for.  Nothing I have said so far regarding all-time highs for government program use is controversial.  I get the impression that you are trying to bring politics into this, and that is not at all what I am trying to do.  No one is saying that government is irrelevant.  I am simply making the point that while the government plays an important role in setting the climate for optimal job growth, it is still ultimately the private businesses themselves that choose whether to hire, or not hire.  The government cannot intervene and force employers to hire. 

Caehlim

#24
Firstly let me get this out of the way before discussing some of the other points from this thread.




Australian minimum wage: AUD$15.96 or US$16.59 (source)
U.S. minimum wage: US$7.25 (source)

Australian unemployment rate: 5.4% (source)
U.S. unemployment rate: 7.7% (source)




So yes, I do find it strange hearing Americans talking about higher minimum wages like no one knows what will happen and we have to use advanced economic theory and thought experiments to predict it.
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

Valthazar

#25
Quote from: Caehlim on March 21, 2013, 08:34:50 AM
Firstly let me get this out of the way before discussing some of the other points from this thread.




Australian minimum wage: AUD$15.96 or US$16.59 (source)
U.S. minimum wage: US$7.25 (source)

Australian unemployment rate: 5.4% (source)
U.S. unemployment rate: 7.7% (source)




So yes, I do find it strange hearing Americans talking about higher minimum wages like no one knows what will happen and we have to use advanced economic theory and thought experiments to predict it.

Caehlim,

I appreciate you bringing Australia into this discussion, because they are one of the few countries that actually knows how to properly go about setting a minimum wage.  There are many differences between the minimum wage laws of Australia and the US.  When the US passes minimum wage laws, they generally tend to be of a sweeping nature, applying to all workers in the economy.  As we have discussed so far, this creates significant problems with entry-level employees and the elderly.  Let us examine how Australia goes about doing things:

First and foremost, the minimum wage is set accordingly based on age:

    Under 16 years of age  $5.87
    At 16 years of age   $7.55
    At 17 years of age   $9.22
    At 18 years of age   $10.90
    At 19 years of age   $13.17
    At 20 years of age   $15.59.
Source: http://www.fairwork.gov.au/pay/national-minimum-wage/pages/default.aspx

Notice how the minimum wage for workers around age 18 is much less than your over 20 minimum wage?  This makes it easier for entry-level workers to find employment, since it gives businesses a competitive advantage to hire younger employees.

Also, let us examine the minimum wage laws in Australia for individuals with disabilities and the elderly:

"The percentage is based on ‘assessed productive capacity’. For example, someone with a capacity of 70% would get 70% of Special National Minimum Wage 1 (ie. 70% of $15.96 per hour)."
Source: http://www.fairwork.gov.au/employment/employees-with-disability/pages/special-national-minimum-wage-for-employees-with-disability.aspx

In other words, Australia's minimum wage policies are done the way it should be done.  It allows for a base standard of living, without creating a scenario where the minimum wage laws ultimately end up hurting the employment prospects of the people it strives to help.  Obviously my knowledge of Australia's economic policies is limited, but it is clear to me that these caveats in the laws play a large role in why it is so successful for your country.  I'm interested to hear your insight on this.

Caehlim

Forgive me for not going into detail about the differing laws for younger employees, I honestly assumed that yours worked the same way and we could just use the adult rates for comparisons without going into the complexities of different age groups and other special cases.

Are you telling me that you don't have different rates for younger workers in America?  :o I'm surprised. It seems very common sense. I think I fell victim to my cultural biases prejudicing my opinion.

Quote from: ValthazarElite on March 21, 2013, 08:50:54 AM
Obviously my knowledge of Australia's economic policies is limited, but it is clear to me that these caveats in the laws play a large role in why it is so successful for your country.  I'm interested to hear your insight on this.

I definitely agree that something like this is essential to making a minimum wage system work correctly. I definitely understand your concerns a lot more if you don't have anything like this.

We also have a million of other mechanisms built in. There are government subsidies provided to businesses who take on apprentices, tax-breaks to companies who hire the long-term unemployed and a comprehensive national job-seeking network.

You can receive unemployment benefits for your entire life here, at $497 a fortnight base rate (source) it's enough to meet basic standard of living, although it is contingent on proving that you're applying to jobs and attending any offered interviews.

If you're unemployed and receiving benefits you're required to attend jobsearch meetings where a case manager helps you find work. They're given funds from the government that they can spend on providing you with training, interview clothes, transport, assistance moving closer to employment, whatever is required. That company then receives a massive bonus from the government when you start work and remain employed for 6 months or more. Whoever hires you is given a bonus as well.

When I was unemployed when I was younger, my jobsearching agency paid for me to attend a training course for a security license and also paid for the licensing fees etc. This got me employed for the next two years working in security and I only left that field due to an injury.

We don't have student loans. To pay for university we have HECS loans, which you don't need to pay back until you start earning over a particular threshold (Source). You're also paid to attend university (Source).





There is a lot of assistance to help people find work here, but there's also a lot of assistance for people who don't have work. I think it's a good system personally and it's hard not to feel patriotic pride about it.
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

Callie Del Noire

No, Caehlim, we don't vary minimum wage. It's the same if you're a 17 or 90 year old. You get paid the same rate throughout a state. Supposedly you can live off of it.. but more often than not, it takes more than one person in a household to make a viable living in a LOT of homes. You have about a year, I think, to start paying back your loans after getting through with school too. (Folks feel free to correct me)

I'm willing to bet you don't have a lot of the corporate welfare we give out via our government either.

Business isn't always fair. If you a BIG company..like.. say.. GE, you can make record profits and thanks to the way the laws are written actually earn a tax CREDIT. While laying off thousands of US jobs and outsourcing..and get compensated for it all. The BIG companies have gamed the system for the last 5 or 6 decades and now we're starting to fall apart because they aren't paying their share, all the while whining about what they DO pay.


Valthazar

Quote from: Caehlim on March 21, 2013, 09:52:54 AM
There is a lot of assistance to help people find work here, but there's also a lot of assistance for people who don't have work. I think it's a good system personally and it's hard not to feel patriotic pride about it.

Caehlim, thanks for the information.

It definitely seems like you have a great system in Australia.  I think Americans are torn when they hear about programs like that.  On one hand, it is ingrained into us culturally that there is a sense of pride that comes from being self-sufficient, and being able to independently take care of yourself and your family without the help of the government.  That culture is starting to change, but even so, we can't help but feel a sense of respect for people who do whatever it takes (working 3 jobs plus overtime) just to make ends meet.

The reality is that if you earn above an average income, America is an amazing place to live.  If you earn average or below income, you will face significant challenges.  For what it's worth though, maybe that's the price of living in a completely free society with (currently) limited laws and government intervention.  That is quickly changing though.

Caehlim

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on March 21, 2013, 09:58:54 AM
I'm willing to bet you don't have a lot of the corporate welfare we give out via our government either.

I wish I could say that, although to be fair there are problems with that here too.

Here's an article about it Corporate welfare looms as major hurdle. (This is from the IPA, which is an Australian think-tank that I think is roughly analogous to the CATO institute in America so don't forget to account for their biases).

QuoteBusiness isn't always fair. If you a BIG company..like.. say.. GE, you can make record profits and thanks to the way the laws are written actually earn a tax CREDIT. While laying off thousands of US jobs and outsourcing..and get compensated for it all. The BIG companies have gamed the system for the last 5 or 6 decades and now we're starting to fall apart because they aren't paying their share, all the while whining about what they DO pay.

To the best of my knowledge (which is minimal on this topic), we have less corporate tax dodges over here. As my last post suggested, we have a fairly large government involvement in things so there's a fairly high tax rate.

Lately our scandals have more been union bosses embezzling. For example the AWU affair.
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

Caela

Callie, it's actually six months before you're expected to start paying back student loans. However it's not that hard to get them put into a forbearance if you can't afford to pay them and if you are still in school you can have them deferred completely. The main difference between the two being that some of your loans (can never remember if it's subsidized or un-subsidized) will continue to accrue interest while in a forbearance but will be completely static while deferred.

Some people have them in a forbearance, or deferred, for YEARS.

Trieste

The subsidized loans are essentially when the government pays interest (which is where the subsidy is from). Unsubbed loans, you pay the interest. (Technically, they both accrue interest while you're in school. It's just that you don't have to pay that interest on some.)

Pumpkin Seeds

#32
Student loans are probably the nicest loans you can get.  There are some professions where they are cracking down on non-payment, such as refusing a nurse a license if they go into default on the loan.  By and large though the companies are pretty eager to work with you on getting those loans at least somewhat paid.  Hopefully some sort of student loan forgivness plan is going to come down from the government though as I believe student debt is supposed to be surpassing all other forms soon.  I could be wrong.

Valthazar

#33
Quote from: Pumpkin Seeds on March 22, 2013, 01:40:35 AM
Student loans are probably the nicest loans you can get.  There are some professions where they are cracking down on non-payment, such as refusing a nurse a license if they go into default on the loan.  By and large though the companies are pretty eager to work with you on getting those loans at least somewhat paid.  Hopefully some sort of student loan forgivness plan is going to come down from the government though as I believe student debt is supposed to be surpassing all other forms soon.  I could be wrong.

I actually think student loans are one of the worst kinds of loans out there, even though it is essential for most people.  The reality is that you cannot file for bankruptcy on student loans - so they stick with you for life.  In contrast, if you have thousands of dollars in credit card debt, you can simply file for bankruptcy and have a clean slate (despite a terrible credit score). 

You are right that many employers want to work with the employees on their loan payments, but this is usually only for federal student loans.  Many individuals have taken out sizable private loans to attend expensive private universities from companies like Sallie Mae, which have variable interest rates, and little flexibility with income-based repayments. 

crabmouse003

Increasing minimum wage is a good idea, and most economists agree. Look up IGM's polling for more information. Increasing minimum wage will increase prices for commodities like fast food, but not by a notice amount. Since companies still have to compete with each other, most of the cost will come out of profits. This will help the economy, since people who are paid minimum wage spend their entire paychecks.

crabmouse003

Raising minimum wage won't really cost extra jobs, since most companies pay minimum wage to maximize profits, not because they can't afford to pay more. Raising minimum wage may make it harder for inexperienced wieners to get a job, since min wage jobs will look slightly better to more experienced people, but the benefits of the extra income outweighs this cost.

crabmouse003

Quote from: Pumpkin Seeds on March 22, 2013, 01:40:35 AM
Student loans are probably the nicest loans you can get.  There are some professions where they are cracking down on non-payment, such as refusing a nurse a license if they go into default on the loan.  By and large though the companies are pretty eager to work with you on getting those loans at least somewhat paid.  Hopefully some sort of student loan forgivness plan is going to come down from the government though as I believe student debt is supposed to be surpassing all other forms soon.  I could be wrong.

The sequester has raised interest rates on student loans. It might be possible that the sequester is canceled, but it's not likely that a bill that benefits students will get through the house.

Retribution

Reading this with all the economics makes my eyes glaze over. Thankfully my wife is the one with the MBA who thinks about such things. So here is my entirely unempirical thoughts on it. Over the last say decade I have seen companies I inspect close, move over seas, so on and so forth. Being an environmental professional I can often tell how a company is doing when I look at their waste streams. Not much waste generated not much work is being done. Many large companies that I inspect are now warehouses the jobs gone over seas.

What I think is causing this is a vicious circle and I am not sure how to fix it or if minimum wage has an effect. Basically we are want products as cheap as we can get them and we tend to buy cheap. Heck, I often by new things at an elevated price thinking they will work better and they often do not so I generally go cheap. Money often gets tight after all. I think a lot of people do the same. But in the US we have an elevated standard of living as well as an elevated cost of things. So, you need well a lot more than minimum wage to make ends meet. But it is hard to fill jobs at that price when we buy cheap and to get that cheap price the labor say goes to China.

And companies are out for companies, labor is out for labor, all trying to squeeze every red cent out of things. It makes a vicious circle with the working stiff caught in the middle because I do not think companies or organized labor have the 9-5 person's best interest in mind. No idea on earth how to fix this but it just makes it hard all the way around. There is an inherent thought process in the worker that they are owed something for minimum effort and that all large profitable companies are bad. There is an inherent thought process on the say corporate side that workers are lazy and they should be squeezed. Then toss in those who do not educate themselves, learn a trade, or do anything to help their cause while decrying their plight in life. Minimum wage does not fix any of these things and I kind of look at it as a feel good approach.

Callie Del Noire

You want jobs to come back?

My take is this: stop rewarding big international businesses exporting the jobs, lower the higher (30%+) corporate tax rate to something competative with European rates while cutting out the 'tax dodges' and instead of rewarding outsourcing reward corporate reinvestment in our communities.

Retribution

Well if you want to talk taxes I favor a flat tax. Cross the board all incomes all companies pick a number I do not care what the number is and we -all- pay it. No deductions, no tax breaks, no well those who earn more can pay more. Pick a number and everyone pays that number rich, poor, big business, small business. Stop using the tax code to try and social engineer as well as influence the economy....simplify it.

But that is for another discussion.

crabmouse003

Quote from: Retribution on June 02, 2013, 08:32:01 PM
Reading this with all the economics makes my eyes glaze over. Thankfully my wife is the one with the MBA who thinks about such things. So here is my entirely unempirical thoughts on it. Over the last say decade I have seen companies I inspect close, move over seas, so on and so forth. Being an environmental professional I can often tell how a company is doing when I look at their waste streams. Not much waste generated not much work is being done. Many large companies that I inspect are now warehouses the jobs gone over seas.

What I think is causing this is a vicious circle and I am not sure how to fix it or if minimum wage has an effect. Basically we are want products as cheap as we can get them and we tend to buy cheap. Heck, I often by new things at an elevated price thinking they will work better and they often do not so I generally go cheap. Money often gets tight after all. I think a lot of people do the same. But in the US we have an elevated standard of living as well as an elevated cost of things. So, you need well a lot more than minimum wage to make ends meet. But it is hard to fill jobs at that price when we buy cheap and to get that cheap price the labor say goes to China.

And companies are out for companies, labor is out for labor, all trying to squeeze every red cent out of things. It makes a vicious circle with the working stiff caught in the middle because I do not think companies or organized labor have the 9-5 person's best interest in mind. No idea on earth how to fix this but it just makes it hard all the way around. There is an inherent thought process in the worker that they are owed something for minimum effort and that all large profitable companies are bad. There is an inherent thought process on the say corporate side that workers are lazy and they should be squeezed. Then toss in those who do not educate themselves, learn a trade, or do anything to help their cause while decrying their plight in life. Minimum
wage does not fix any of these things and I kind of look at it as a feel good approach.

Raising the minimum wage won't move jobs to other countries, since most of the jobs that pay minimum wage are in the service industry, like fast food, janitorial work etc. Saying people should just go learn a trade or work harder isn't a viable option, since these are jobs that need to be filled either way. With more people educating themselves, the value of the education decreases.  Raising the minimum wage is a good way to make sure people who are working hard don't have to live in poverty. You will find that people who work minimum wage are forced to work multiple jobs.

If we want to bring jobs back to the US we can reverse the policies that sent them away in the first place. It's doubtful this would increase the real value of wages, since this will also raise prices.

Retribution

My point was I do not think you can live on minimum wage unless it is raised to impractically high levels. The proposed increase will not change that. One can say learning a trade or getting educated would be devalued or is not for everyone, but what is the alternative?

crabmouse003

Quote from: Retribution on June 03, 2013, 05:51:20 AM
My point was I do not think you can live on minimum wage unless it is raised to impractically high levels. The proposed increase will not change that. One can say learning a trade or getting educated would be devalued or is not for everyone, but what is the alternative?

Raising minimum wage would help, but you're right, it wouldn't fix the poverty problem.
Don't get me wrong, education is great, and we need to give people in poverty better access. More social safety nets, a negative income tax, would help eliminate poverty. We should emulate the scandinavian countries who have basically already done it.

Ephiral

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on June 02, 2013, 09:24:51 PM
You want jobs to come back?

My take is this: stop rewarding big international businesses exporting the jobs, lower the higher (30%+) corporate tax rate to something competative with European rates while cutting out the 'tax dodges' and instead of rewarding outsourcing reward corporate reinvestment in our communities.

Err. I see two major problems here. First, during America's most prosperous years, when corporations were still at home and things were still made there, corporate tax rates were considerably higher. Second, the third-highest corporate marginal tax rate in Europe, at a hair over 33%,  is in Germany, while the lowest (10%) is shared by economic powerhouses Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cyprus, and Serbia.

Perhaps low corporate taxes aren't the answer?

Quote from: Retribution on June 02, 2013, 09:30:01 PM
Well if you want to talk taxes I favor a flat tax. Cross the board all incomes all companies pick a number I do not care what the number is and we -all- pay it. No deductions, no tax breaks, no well those who earn more can pay more. Pick a number and everyone pays that number rich, poor, big business, small business. Stop using the tax code to try and social engineer as well as influence the economy....simplify it.

But that is for another discussion.

So... rather than paying actual living wages, you would like the poor to shoulder even more of the economic burden? 'Cause that's kinda what a flat tax does.

Retribution

In order sans the quotes that make it hard to read:

Crabmouse003 -> Sorry I just plain do not buy it. I know school is not for everyone but learn a trade welder, plumber, mechanic, truck driver, something that you can do that has a value. We got plenty of social safety nets I have gone to work every day weather I liked to or not for the last 23 years and I am getting pretty tired of supporting those who do not. I am all for programs that would help these people learn a trade but not for handouts. How I view minimum wage jobs are they are meant for teens or young people just starting out until they get their feet under them not as a way of life.

Ephiral -> That sort of thinking is just plain wrong. They tried taking from the haves to give to the have nots in the old USSR and it did not work so well. Or feel free to ask someone in say Cuba about how that sort of economic model works for them. One does not encourage excellence by punishing excellence. I do not care if you inherited your money from great grandpa, great grandpa earned it and it is his right to leave it to his heirs it is not the government’s money.

Learn a trade, earn a living wage at that trade. Heck, I am all for the government paying to send you to trade school to learn that trade but get a job and be a productive member of society. As for flat taxes percentages working as they do you earn less you pay less you earn more you pay more it is simple math. This whole notion of lets punish people for earning a decent wage and having the ambition to go make something of themselves is why we have people sitting around decrying their plight in life and not doing something about it. As I used to tell the kids I coached I do not like excuses. Yoda was a very smart little green man “do or do not do not try.”

And do not bother telling me I do not know what it is like to be poor. I grew up poor and wondering at times where my next meal was coming from. I mean that in a very literal sense I will spare you the walked 5 miles to school uphill both ways details, but trust me I have seen hard times. I chose to take advantage of opportunities that are out there and got past that. I am not saying we should not help those who need help we should, but this is not and should not be a life style and punishing those who chose to better themselves by using the tax code is wrong.

Trieste

Except it's not a punishment. The government taking 10% of your earnings when you make 20k a year? That's punishment. Success comes with responsibilities, but those responsibilities are not necessarily punishments, they're just Shit You Do Because You're Successful. It's not a punishment for success any more than homeowner's association fees, car insurance, cabana boy salary expenses and paying for the coconut oil with which to slather them are punishments. They are financial responsibilities that you accept because you're successful and you're living like a successful person.

Paying higher taxes is part of acknowledging that you are successful and your responsibility as a successful person to society has grown. It's kind of like being given more responsibility while you're growing up - being given more complicated or more numerous chores may seem like a punishment because they're not fun, but they're not - they're just a result of being recognized as being older, more mature, and (for example) able to reach the sink well enough to be able to do the dishes.

Bitching about having to pay more of your income to provide other people with the same help that you likely received to GET your higher income is really... well, that's really something, yes it is.

Callie Del Noire

The problem is Retribution, it that it's getting harder and harder to find jobs in some areas with 'living wages' at the lower tiers. I got a few neighbors who have to work 60 hours a week, both of them, to make a living as the job market around here imploded. Trade schools are all well and find but there is a LOT of pressure to curtail or outright shut down vocational training in some public school districts.

There is a telling push for 'college' to succeed. I talked to about 3 dozen workers I had working for me in the Navy.. every last one of them were skilled technicians who thought they needed a degree to be a success. I pointed out an Electrician certification and/or Airframes/Powerplants License, FCC Certification would get them outstanding jobs in the commercial market for what we did. It was not even in their outlook.

I'm as much a victim of this 'college or starve' outlook in that my Uncle Earl offered me a job with his refrigeration firm. Had I taken him up on it, I'd have been making something like 50 grand a year by the second year after highschool. (We talked about it years later). I talked with a friend of my last year, he's a teacher, and in his rural community there is a massive push to shut down the vocational training section of the public school system. (The tea party took control on the local level). He found it ironic since three of the candidates came into the board electon as 'building the future' platform types.

Today we have a lot of candidates who push 'building the future' and yet I see little of it when it comes to education. You get more and more folks pushing for less and less education in the public system, and then pushing for less and less 'regulation' of business practices. 'Right to Work' cost me a job because they were looking to cut costs. (The guy point blank thanked me for giving him the excuse to let the new 25/hour guy so he could hire a less qualfied man who only rated a 17/hour rate. He tried to force 15 year vet workers to take 2 to 3 steps down in pay to make himself look good.

Let's face it.. in the last 3 decades the outlook in business has been to make everything cheaper/quicker or less costly. I have a handful of friends who can't get a job because they aren't qualified.. but because they are. I was told by one company that I was 'too good' to do the job. (IE.. the supervising manager feared I could do his job.. which, had I the FAA qualifications for civilian work.. I could, but I didn't want it. I LIKE working on aircraft and doing things with my hands.. not coordinating the shop and telling others what to do.)

Minimum wage hasn't moved with the times.. and won't for a long while. We got folks working 2 to 3 jobs to keep their kids fed, and never getting to see them and literally working themselves into a grave.  In Europe, I see folks working not as long but living as well. Because there is a consideation of both the worker and the business.

Here in the US.. there is no consideration for the worker anymore. Not really.

Kythia

Quote from: Ephiral on June 03, 2013, 11:31:26 AM
Err. I see two major problems here. First, during America's most prosperous years, when corporations were still at home and things were still made there, corporate tax rates were considerably higher. Second, the third-highest corporate marginal tax rate in Europe, at a hair over 33%,  is in Germany, while the lowest (10%) is shared by economic powerhouses Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cyprus, and Serbia.

Glad to see I'm not the only one person who ignores the existence of Montenegro  :P
242037

Ephiral

#48
Quote from: Retribution on June 03, 2013, 12:49:36 PM
Ephiral -> That sort of thinking is just plain wrong. They tried taking from the haves to give to the have nots in the old USSR and it did not work so well. Or feel free to ask someone in say Cuba about how that sort of economic model works for them. One does not encourage excellence by punishing excellence. I do not care if you inherited your money from great grandpa, great grandpa earned it and it is his right to leave it to his heirs it is not the government’s money.

Where do I even begin here? First, let's try your bullshit comparison to Cuba or the USSR. This is a facile, childish argument, and you know it. I'll rebut by simply pointing to the fact that pretty much every reasonably-successful country in the world uses a progressive tax system, and you're able to cite exactly one example of a nation brought down by economic policy. The weight of evidence is... not on your side. Next... let's define "excellence", shall we? I'd like to know exactly what criteria you're looking at. And finally for the first paragraph: It's his money, not the government's, right? So I assume that Great Grampa built the highway system? Paid the police directly to protect his workers? Used absolutely no tools or equipment that had ever seen any government funding, either via direct grants or tax incentives to the developers and manufacturers?

Quote from: Retribution on June 03, 2013, 12:49:36 PMLearn a trade, earn a living wage at that trade. Heck, I am all for the government paying to send you to trade school to learn that trade but get a job and be a productive member of society. As for flat taxes percentages working as they do you earn less you pay less you earn more you pay more it is simple math. This whole notion of lets punish people for earning a decent wage and having the ambition to go make something of themselves is why we have people sitting around decrying their plight in life and not doing something about it. As I used to tell the kids I coached I do not like excuses. Yoda was a very smart little green man “do or do not do not try.”

Learn a trade, try to earn a living wage at that trade, realize that in America right now the supply of labour far outstrips the demand, deal with mounting debts from your education. Any model that assumes employment as a guaranteed and automatic result of qualifications regardless of field or circumstances is incredibly naive. And since it seems you haven't thought through the implications of what you're proposing: When you're making $20 000 a year, $4000 taken out of that can mean you can no longer afford to eat well or have a roof over your head. When you're making $20 000 000 a year, $4 000 000... really isn't going to affect your quality of life in any meaningful way. So while it might be an equal percentage, it is by no means an equal burden. Now we look at required revenue, and realize that under a flat-tax system, taxes on the poor - the ones for whom this is already a massive burden - will go up, while taxes on the people who can most afford it and are least affected by it go down. Does that seem right or fair or just to you?

Quote from: Retribution on June 03, 2013, 12:49:36 PMAnd do not bother telling me I do not know what it is like to be poor. I grew up poor and wondering at times where my next meal was coming from. I mean that in a very literal sense I will spare you the walked 5 miles to school uphill both ways details, but trust me I have seen hard times. I chose to take advantage of opportunities that are out there and got past that. I am not saying we should not help those who need help we should, but this is not and should not be a life style and punishing those who chose to better themselves by using the tax code is wrong.

You're getting a little defensive there. I never said anything of the sort - but I do hope you can recognise that the opportunities you availed yourself of are not universal.


Quote from: Kythia on June 03, 2013, 01:46:44 PM
Glad to see I'm not the only one person who ignores the existence of Montenegro  :P
I stand corrected - they appear to be the lowest, at 9%. But... again, hardly known for being an economic powerhouse.

Kythia

No, I was actually perfectly serious.  I haven't sent an ambassador to Montenegro and refuse to take part in sporting competitions that acknowledge them.  That's why I wasn't in the Olympics.  But that's by the by.




QuoteLearn a trade, earn a living wage at that trade. Heck, I am all for the government paying to send you to trade school to learn that trade but get a job and be a productive member of society

This, to me, is where your argument starts to become inconsistent, Retribution.  That's a transfer payment just as much as anything you seem to object to.  It will end up (in the first instance) in money being taken from haves - taxpayers - and given to have nots - non-taxpayers.  Sure, it may or may not equal itself out eventually but I cant see why you support that sort of initiative but not a, functionally identical, raise in minimum wage.
242037

Retribution

We are not going to agree on this and do not mistake me I am comfortable not rich but I digress. I paid my student loans back and had some scholarships both athletic and academic not that any of that is really your concern. Ten percent of $100 is $10. Ten percent of $1000000 is $100000. Unless I am failing to grasp basic math here then the person who makes more is paying substantially more. So yes those who earn more are paying more under a flat system they are just not getting the extra dig and twist because they must be evil if they make that money....inherit it whatever.

I work for the government. Government does not do things well or efficiently ask anyone who has ever been in the military. But I am not saying we should charge no taxes what I am saying is taxes should be used to fund the programs and not to try and rearrange the economic and social order.

But this got off track, my point is to pick a number and call it a living wage. Lets say it is $20 an hour plus benefits just for argument. My original point was I do not think we can suddenly jack up the minimum wage to that level without wrecking our economy. So maybe lets save the minimum wage jobs for those starting out as a supplement and try and get those who are down on their luck what have you into a trade school or something so they can earn a living wage.

But that becomes hard when manufacturing jobs are leaving the country and the like. Then toss in the fact that we all tend to buy cheap to try and get more for our money and it makes the problem worse. But even having said that many in the manufacturing business are crying for skilled labor and there is just none to be found.  I honestly think that is the way to help those who are in a lower economic position. What is the alternative that the rest of society supports them for the rest of their lives? So what I am saying Kythia is I will dig in my pocket to help them but then they are on their own.

I am out guys the productive portion of this conversation has ended. It turns into the divisive nature of world views in general and all any of us do is get angry.

Ephiral

Quote from: Retribution on June 03, 2013, 02:11:29 PM
We are not going to agree on this and do not mistake me I am comfortable not rich but I digress. I paid my student loans back and had some scholarships both athletic and academic not that any of that is really your concern. Ten percent of $100 is $10. Ten percent of $1000000 is $100000. Unless I am failing to grasp basic math here then the person who makes more is paying substantially more. So yes those who earn more are paying more under a flat system they are just not getting the extra dig and twist because they must be evil if they make that money....inherit it whatever.

Le sigh. Yes, the richer person is contributing mroe dollars. But are they shouldering an equal burden? If I give you $100 to make it through the next week or two, and then take $10 of that away, I have probably just taken a meal out of your mouth. If I give you $1 million to make it through that same period, and then take away $100k, you... are not going to suffer in any appreciable way. At worst, you might not be able to afford quite as many top-flight luxuries. This is my point. I also note that you completely ignore the bit where taxes on the poor would have to go up under a flat system. This isn't about saying the rich must be evil, this is about recognising that higher taxes are less burdensome to them, and that they benefit far more from the things those taxes pay for.

Quote from: Retribution on June 03, 2013, 02:11:29 PMI work for the government. Government does not do things well or efficiently ask anyone who has ever been in the military. But I am not saying we should charge no taxes what I am saying is taxes should be used to fund the programs and not to try and rearrange the economic and social order.
First, I would very strongly challenge your extremely broad blanket statement that "government does not do things well or efficiently". My 100% government-fuinded single-payer health care system provides for healthier people at 10% of the overhead costs of the American system. Private charities can have efficiency ratings as low as 60% - how does the US food stamp program stack up against that? (Real numbers, not talking points that ignore most of the benefits handed out, please.) Government can be inefficient. So can the private sector.

Quote from: Retribution on June 03, 2013, 02:11:29 PMBut this got off track, my point is to pick a number and call it a living wage. Lets say it is $20 an hour plus benefits just for argument. My original point was I do not think we can suddenly jack up the minimum wage to that level without wrecking our economy. So maybe lets save the minimum wage jobs for those starting out as a supplement and try and get those who are down on their luck what have you into a trade school or something so they can earn a living wage.
This point was... rather poorly expressed, then. I'd say we can't say whether or not it would screw up the economy without knowing what a realistic number looks like. Pulling a figure out of the air and saying "Of course this would wreck things!" is hardly convincing.

Quote from: Retribution on June 03, 2013, 02:11:29 PMI am out guys the productive portion of this conversation has ended. It turns into the divisive nature of world views in general and all any of us do is get angry.
I, for one, am not angry. I'll gladly reconsider my position if actual counterevidence is presented. All I'm asking is that you actually think through your arguments instead of just regurgitating talking points.

Retribution

Quote from: Ephiral on June 03, 2013, 02:27:21 PM
I, for one, am not angry. I'll gladly reconsider my position if actual counterevidence is presented. All I'm asking is that you actually think through your arguments instead of just regurgitating talking points.

We are both regurgitating talking points from our own perspective and views man. We can both sling anecdotes at one another all day or hell toss in numbers but it all adds up to the same. You may love your health care system [and I am actually of the opinion US health care needs fixed and more or less support Obama care] but I bet you got countrymen who hate it. I am not going to change your mind and you are not going to change mine. I am still out because there really is not much productive we can accomplish and I honestly think a lot of the lack of civility in politics comes from a failure to just agree to disagree.

Ephiral

Quote from: Retribution on June 03, 2013, 02:50:28 PM
We are both regurgitating talking points from our own perspective and views man. We can both sling anecdotes at one another all day or hell toss in numbers but it all adds up to the same. You may love your health care system [and I am actually of the opinion US health care needs fixed and more or less support Obama care] but I bet you got countrymen who hate it. I am not going to change your mind and you are not going to change mine. I am still out because there really is not much productive we can accomplish and I honestly think a lot of the lack of civility in politics comes from a failure to just agree to disagree.

Well, yeah, if you dismiss "tossing in numbers" in an economics discussion as mere "talking points", no wonder you don't think it's possible to get anywhere. So long.

Retribution

Okay give me a second here I will spit out some numbers for you as my example of government often times not being efficient. Not always but often times okay then can we get over this?

Valthazar

#55
I'll chime in here, since I started this thread.  A lot of interesting perspectives have been raised.

One of my main concerns is a lack of trust in free-market capitalism as an avenue towards prosperity.  Many of the problems that people cite here with corporate greed are actually a result of interference and corruption in capitalism - rather than a flaw with the system itself.  For example, collusion between companies, artificially creating oligopolies in certain markets, etc.  The knee-jerk reaction to seeing this "corruption" is to believe that the entire premise of capitalism is inherently bad - and that laws that siphon money away from business is a way of making the field fair.  Such laws usually come back to backfire against the most impoverished members of society.

Many Americans are finding themselves in a predicament that makes it impossible to stay afloat in this day and age without some sort of external agent (government) helping them.  For example, let us take the example of higher education.  It is now expected that all students will attend college after high school.  A purely capitalist model (which is the premise for America's past success) would demand that all citizens use rational thought when making decisions - and that the consequences for poor decision making ultimately fall on the individual himself/herself.  Is it rational for an individual to take out loans (money that they do not have) for a college/university without assessing the marketability for that endeavor?  In the past, students who could not afford college would work in the workforce for 3-4 years and save up money for tuition, and then attend college.  When a massive number of individuals flood an industry with demand - the natural laws of economics will cause the producer (the college) to increase their tuition. 

What is the solution to curb this rising cost of higher education?  It is to rationalize that not every productive member of society necessarily needs to attend a college.  Many jobs that in the past never required a college degree (such as regular office jobs) now require a college degree because of this flood in demand.  Decreasing the demand will cause the supplier (the college) to reduce their tuition in order to become more marketable to a dwindling demographic of customers.

Unfortunately, laws passed as a way to ensure a comfortable standard of living destroy the natural ebb and flow of the free market.  The government now guarantees student loans for all students - regardless of their high school grades.  In the past, private banks would be using their own capital to give out loans - and would be careful to give loans only to students who would have the potential for graduating / developing a career.

It is truly unfortunate when I talk to students who are drowning in student debt.  Many of these students are under the impression that our current economic problems are the result of business autonomously going after the average person in society, when in reality, it is because we have deviated from the principles that made the US so economically prosperous.  The main culprits of our troubles are corporate corruption, and expansion of government influence into business practice.

Retribution

For fifteen years I oversaw a waste cleanup program that was funded by user fees. I will spare the exact item that constituted the waste because I would like to keep my job.  But this is a recurrent issue we have encountered in my employment with various programs.  In this program we got exactly $.45 on the dollar to spend doing remediation. Now on occasion I would do really well in organizing and not spend all my portion of that pie. So we would have money left over great right? Wrong! My marching orders were go out and spend that money otherwise we would not get as much the next year. We would only get $.35 on the dollar the next year instead of the $.45. The other part that was more than half was diverted into other programs. That was supposed to be illegal but there were back door mechanisms in the law that allowed it. I am sure you can see how this is not efficient and in fact is a bit on the counter productive side. In essence I was ordered to be inefficient so we would have funds to fall back on the next year.

On another note two years ago it was decided a lot of money could be saved by moving my office and consolidating. So we moved, movers paid, computer lines put in, servers installed, new trunk lines all at a cost.  So over time this would indeed save some money but you had to stretch it out to cover those costs of moving. But someplace along the line the lease was only signed for two years. The landlord is not renewing said lease so now we are about to be evicted the Agency has no idea where we are going and all of those expenses must be incurred yet again so the money saved has all been lost.

I had not wanted to get into these details on the internet because well I could get fired, but I think I was vague enough on them to cover my backside. Those are two examples of extreme inefficiency and I could dig up others with numbers for you that I have personal knowledge of not looking up things on the internet. So you see when I hear about wonderful government programs I am more than a little skeptical. You will find some private industry that is just as crazy but the government tends to put them in jail for doing what well the government did. Look up Jimmy Hoffa of Teamster fame who went to prison for making loans to the mob out of the pension fund. But various branches of government get their fingers in the pension fund hell –my- pension fund has been embezzled and it is just fine since they are the government.

So when you tell me “we are going to take your tax money and help these poor people” I am skeptical. Now my wife works for a nonprofit and they do help people but they also get the squeeze put on them by on high because they are an employer as well. These things are flawed in my way of thinking.

Are those enough real examples for you? I hear government will help and I cringe because I am in many ways the government. And the system is so broken I cannot express it in words so I just do the best I can with the system I have. Now I am really out.

Peace ~R~

Ephiral

...yep. Capitalism is evil; I'm a dirty dirty commie who just wants to take away your hard-earned wealth to give it to slackers. You found me out. It's certainly not that I recognize that opportunities and benefits are not equal, and that sometimes providing opportunities can make society healthier on the whole. I'd ask how you folks saw through my clever clever disguise, but... I think I need to put this thread down for a while.

crabmouse003

Quote from: Retribution on June 03, 2013, 12:49:36 PM
In order sans the quotes that make it hard to read:

Crabmouse003 -> Sorry I just plain do not buy it. I know school is not for everyone but learn a trade welder, plumber, mechanic, truck driver, something that you can do that has a value. We got plenty of social safety nets I have gone to work every day weather I liked to or not for the last 23 years and I am getting pretty tired of supporting those who do not. I am all for programs that would help these people learn a trade but not for handouts. How I view minimum wage jobs are they are meant for teens or young people just starting out until they get their feet under them not as a way of

Learning a new trade is a good idea for an individual, but won't create systemic changes. If we gave everyone 1 million dollars would that eliminate poverty? Obviously not. In the same way, just expecting everyone to get more work experience won't solve the problem. Programs like this are a good idea, they help society, but they won't eliminate poverty. In a perfect world, minimum wage jobs would be for teens to gain experience, but that's not the reality. Let's try to look at the reality of the situation based on empirical evidence. Only 1/5 of minimum wage workers are under 25.
I never said we should give out handouts.

crabmouse003

Quote from: Retribution on June 03, 2013, 02:58:12 PM
Okay give me a second here I will spit out some numbers for you as my example of government often times not being efficient. Not always but often times okay then can we get over this?

If you compare the American government's efficiency to European countries you will find that we underperform.

crabmouse003

Quote from: ValthazarElite on June 03, 2013, 03:15:01 PM
I'll chime in here, since I started this thread.  A lot of interesting perspectives have been raised.

One of my main concerns is a lack of trust in free-market capitalism as an avenue towards prosperity.  Many of the problems that people cite here with corporate greed are actually a result of interference and corruption in capitalism - rather than a flaw with the system itself.  For example, collusion between companies, artificially creating oligopolies in certain markets, etc.  The knee-jerk reaction to seeing this "corruption" is to believe that the entire premise of capitalism is inherently bad - and that laws that siphon money away from business is a way of making the field fair.  Such laws usually come back to backfire against the most impoverished members of society.

For the most part this is true. The free market offers us continued prosperity. Very few economists would say things like rent control are a good idea. These policies have been shown to be failures. In the case of raising the minimum wage, empirical evidence shows major advantages to this policy. Most economists agree.

Many Americans are finding themselves in a predicament that makes it impossible to stay afloat in this day and age without some sort of external agent (government) helping them.  For example, let us take the example of higher education.  It is now expected that all students will attend college after high school.  A purely capitalist model (which is the premise for America's past success) would demand that all citizens use rational thought when making decisions - and that the consequences for poor decision making ultimately fall on the individual himself/herself.  Is it rational for an individual to take out loans (money that they do not have) for a college/university without assessing the marketability for that endeavor?  In the past, students who could not afford college would work in the workforce for 3-4 years and save up money for tuition, and then attend college.  When a massive number of individuals flood an industry with demand - the natural laws of economics will cause the producer (the college) to increase their tuition.  This isn't why the costs of college are increasing. Increased demand causes prices to rise when their is limited supply. One of the largest contributors to rising tuition is budget cuts.

What is the solution to curb this rising cost of higher education?  It is to rationalize that not every productive member of society necessarily needs to attend a college.  Many jobs that in the past never required a college degree (such as regular office jobs) now require a college degree because of this flood in demand.  Decreasing the demand will cause the supplier (the college) to reduce their tuition in order to become more marketable to a dwindling demographic of customers. Absolutely not, colleges are struggling, and have absolutely no room to decrease tuition without severely diminishing the services they as a way to ensure a comfortable standard of living destroy the natural ebb and flow of the free market.  The government now guarantees student loans for all students - regardless of their high school grades.  In the past, private banks would be using their own capital to give out loans - and would be careful to give loans only to students who would have the potential for graduating / developing a career.
This is why student aid is determined by Gpa. it is because we have deviated from the principles that made the US so economically prosperous.  The main culprits of our troubles are corporate corruption, and expansion of government influence into business practice.

Our rise as a super power happened after the new deal, and our most prosperous era was during the time dominated by Keynesian economics.
It's true that sending more students to college diminishes the value of a degree, but the benefits of an educated society make this policy well worth it.

crabmouse003

Is there a way for me to change or delete comments? My reply in the last response was supposed to be highlighted.

Kythia

Heya Crabmouse

Not at the moment, no.  Unapproved members can't edit or delete.   So, best of luck with your approval and another reason to be hopeful its succesful. 
242037

Retribution

And actually Crabmouse003 I agree. The point I failed to make though I was trying is that I see the problem as that there are people trying to live on minimum wage.

And I to wish you luck with your approval process your thoughts are well laid out and insightful.

crabmouse003

Quote from: Retribution on June 03, 2013, 06:43:24 PM
And actually Crabmouse003 I agree. The point I failed to make though I was trying is that I see the problem as that there are people trying to live on minimum wage.

And I to wish you luck with your approval process your thoughts are well laid out and insightful.

Thanks! :)
Yeah, if you can help it, you don't want to live on minimum wage. Glad I don't have to worry about that. Was born in an affluent area, and I started above minimum wage, and I've been handed very good jobs. Easy for me to work my way up.

Trieste

Quote from: crabmouse003 on June 04, 2013, 05:25:13 PM
Thanks! :)
Yeah, if you can help it, you don't want to live on minimum wage. Glad I don't have to worry about that. Was born in an affluent area, and I started above minimum wage, and I've been handed very good jobs. Easy for me to work my way up.

My condolences. That's kind of a disservice to you. I was born in an affluent area, too, and even with parents who could easily have landed me jobs like that, I still spent a couple summers working minimum wage at a pizza joint, or a fast food place, etc. I have three brothers for a total of four of us siblings: two of us started working as early as our parents would let us and were not handed jobs but got them on our own. The other two had similar experiences to what you describe (were handed nice jobs, essentially, albeit one of them was given said job after he practically had to be press-ganged into getting a job)... they are not very good at saving, budgeting, or dealing with general professional hiccups in general.

They expect to be handed things more often, it seems like. Well, the older of the two has grown out of it mostly... painfully.

Anyway, I hope you've managed to do well despite all that. :)

Cthonig

    I was going to quote things but even trimming a lot this post would be huge so I'm going to try to do this without quotes, rewriting my replies to hopefully make sense. I got it down to about 900 words from 1800+.
    I quite liked many of the replies to ValthazarElite but this is already long so just a few specific comments.

Trieste,
I liked the charts which show the claims (about raising the minimum wage causing job loss) to be questionable at best if not false.


TaintedAndDelish,
    A couple months ago I read about a study that found that people who are poor and worried about money make bad decisions about spending it. They try not to spend it since they don't have much but when they do spend it their worry interferes enough that they make poor choices. This was not just a study of poor people; this was a clinical study where scenarios were set up for test subjects and they were given an "income" and asked to spend it. (Later I might try to look for the study to provide a link but when I need to find something online I don't always do well in my web searches.)
    Educating people is always a good thing but education doesn't solve every problem – like making money. Look how many people who have a degree who don't make much.


ValthazarElite,
    This started out in chronological order with the quotes. I have tried to condense and organize it but it does not flow, sorry.
    Free-market setting of wages empowering workers is somewhat true in good economic times. We have a very poor economy right now and this is rarely true; this applies currently to only a very few jobs.
    You make a false correlation between raising the minimum wage and our current economic problems. Rising food and gas prices cut people's income which resulted in mortgage defaulting which dealt a nasty blow to the economy.
    Thirty or forty years ago many businesses cutting a significant percentage of jobs could have happened in response to an increase in the minimum wage but not today. For the past twenty years or so businesses have been "cutting the fat" to the point where there is now nothing left to cut. Which is why companies that can are setting up any part of their business they can in foreign countries. Almost no business in America is going to be able to cut much of any jobs if the minimum wage goes up. Raising the minimum wage will help a lot of people and cause extremely few layoffs.
    Your posts read like you accept the flawed austerity study which has led several European countries into further difficulties and that you are basing your incorrect ideas about raising the minimum wage on that mistake. Is this correct?
    Your proposal of $3-4/hour is not enough to live on but is potentially enough to cause the person problems in getting government aid – depending upon how many hours per week they work. This leaves the person earning the $3-4/hour in a very difficult situation: very dependent upon someone else or considering illegal means of income. Plus, with that sort of work history they will only be offered the minimum wage the company that hires them later is willing to offer; companies do look at what you earned in the past and base your wage on that.
    You missed Kythia's point totally. In your theoretical auto repair shop, if your productivity decreases when you fire people then you were not overstaffed. If you are a good manager then you are employing 10 people because you need 10 people. (If you are a bad manager then it could be that you only need 8 people or you might have already tried to "increase efficiency" and gotten rid of people you need and 10 is too few.)
    Many people on unemployment are complacent? How 'good' people getting government benefits have it? The people who give up looking for work do so because they have given up hope in finding work. Needing to collect such money is demeaning but for a few it becomes less demeaning than job hunting (and always being turned down). There is a small percentage for which it is not demeaning? Sure. Just as there are CEOs who are blind to the fact that their government subsidies are also welfare.
    You seem to forget that what made this country so powerful was a combination of theft (of the land from its inhabitants) and innovation. But innovation requires education and we're not doing so hot in education currently.
    Considering the recent economic meltdown, mistrust towards free-market capitalism is very valid and I'm not really for maintaining a free-market, capitalist economy. But I don't have a good alternative yet. My best solution right now is less of the so-called "free-market" deregulation which is part of what enabled the economic meltdown. Increased regulation could help reduce the corruption.
    Currently we have a version of capitalism based on sociopathic behavior: "I'm going to kill my opponents financially and I don't care who I hurt to make money." We used to have a more socialist version of capitalism where people were loyal to the company they worked for and were rewarded with socialist benefits like pensions and health care. Which version of capitalism do you advocate? The sociopathic or the socialist?


Oniya

Anyone who thinks that people on public assistance 'have it good' should take a look at the thread about it in Bad and Ugly.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Callie Del Noire

I find it very ... incomplete to assert that manufacturing in the US is dead.  Maybe the OLD style of manufacturing is, but when you build the system so that instead of providing incentives here in the US and bemoaning how expensive labor cost is you miss a few things. Like the fact that you are IN your primary market, you are empowering the actual people who make the purchases you use to make a profit.

The current system of empowering outsourcing has crippled our economy. Stop rewarding outsourcing and put up tax breaks/benefits that encourage infrastructure development, encourage companies to decentralize their production and spread things around.

In one of my econ classes they had a successful American company (looking for the book), who produces specialty cans for sodas. Here in the US. How? Decentralized manufacturing with extremely high quality control and automated manufacturing. They deliver within 150 miles of manufacturing and that cuts down on costs to the point that they are able to greatly undercut overseas transport costs. Add in a 98.5% rate of accuracy of manufacturing and at least 96% recycling/recovery rate and they can make do.

Look at US businesses. Heavy into massive centralization (lower labor numbers that way) with a disinclination towards new business models and practices. It took the break up of Ma Bell to get a LOT of the tech we take for granted. For those of us who can remember we weren't even allowed to own our own phones. (You leased them from the phone company). There was little to no innovation or options. My mom recalled there were four choices when she got our house in NC.. wall or table with rotary or pushbutton. That was it. You had to be rich to have more than one phone installed. You had wireless phones.. but they were rare.. options like call blocking, tracing, call back and conference calling were scarce. The idea of getting a phone exchange system for your business was something only the BIGGEST business locations could afford or do. You had exchanges that were still running on switching tech from the 40s! Then the US court broke up Ma Bell.

Suddenly you had wireless phones.. HUNDREDS of models of every conceivable type of phone. All sorts of phone services and upgraded phone service, reduced costs and so on.

American business has gotten extremely conservative in it's outlook. Want to reduce costs? Cut/curtail labor costs.. don't look for new ways to do things when you can just find ways to cut costs. Why change what 'works' with something new and challenging?

ReijiTabibito

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on June 05, 2013, 12:23:13 AM
I find it very ... incomplete to assert that manufacturing in the US is dead.  Maybe the OLD style of manufacturing is, but when you build the system so that instead of providing incentives here in the US and bemoaning how expensive labor cost is you miss a few things. Like the fact that you are IN your primary market, you are empowering the actual people who make the purchases you use to make a profit.

Just wanted to slip something in here real quick.  Henry Ford set out to make available to his own employees a car they could afford to buy and drive - the Model T of old renown.  Businesses need to go back to that, on both sides of the equation.  Yes, it's very good that you're producing things cheaply, less overhead.  But less overhead doesn't mean a thing to someone who's unemployed and won't buy your shiny new toy otherwise.


Quote from: Callie Del Noire on June 05, 2013, 12:23:13 AM
American business has gotten extremely conservative in it's outlook. Want to reduce costs? Cut/curtail labor costs.. don't look for new ways to do things when you can just find ways to cut costs. Why change what 'works' with something new and challenging?

Especially when so much trouble is the fault of those greedy unions, what with wanting their liveable wages and job security!  They should be licking our boots like the illegal immigrants we get from across the borders, and...hey, wait a minute, where're you going?  Come back here, dammit!

:P

We're seeing the last thrashings, Callie.  They don't want to admit that they've overreached and gotten greedy themselves.  This too will pass...I just hope that when they go, they don't drag the entire world down with them while they're kicking and screaming about punishment of success.

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: ReijiTabibito on June 05, 2013, 01:23:04 AM

Especially when so much trouble is the fault of those greedy unions, what with wanting their liveable wages and job security!  They should be licking our boots like the illegal immigrants we get from across the borders, and...hey, wait a minute, where're you going?  Come back here, dammit!

:P

We're seeing the last thrashings, Callie.  They don't want to admit that they've overreached and gotten greedy themselves.  This too will pass...I just hope that when they go, they don't drag the entire world down with them while they're kicking and screaming about punishment of success.

I know you're being sarcastic Reiji.. but I grew up knowing one of my grandfather's best neighbors missing half his hand. After my grandfather died I asked my mom about it and she told me it was from a weaving machine back in the 20s that could have been made safer but there was no incentive in doing it. Kannapolis NC wasn't a union town, considered it was OWNED by the mills at the time no suprise, but the textile industry there (killed by NAFTA thank you) was influenced by the unions elsewhere.

We, the US, made domestic production unprofitable. Not from increased regulation, labor unions but letting business get EXACTLY what they wanted. NAFTA is a good example of that. It's not good for any of the countries involved. Canada has had massive resource drain issues, the US has lost jobs by the train load (in some cases entire industries have been outright killed in the US) and Mexico has suffered from business taking advantage of relaxed environmental standards and labor laws dating back in the 1800s.

The countries and people? Not benefiting. Business benefits.

Look at the way things have gone. The video/music industry have REPEATEDLY cooked their books, twisted the law and even outright refuted it to their gain while using it to hammer individuals. Ebook publishing, one of the biggest growing portions of the writing industry, have had a LOT of legally questionable actions. Such as demanding the same price as 'print books' to 'defend the chain of production' even though the costs for the books aren't the same. (you have next to zero transport cost, storage or concerns about buy back issues like you do with 'dead tree' costs)

Deregulation and industry 'self-regulation' have done the average US consumer little to any good and the 'backside' of the industry does even less benefit to the worker.

ReijiTabibito

Sorry to have brought it up.  It is true, though, that there needs to be worker protection.  That or a major moral overhaul of the captains of industry.  Because you can pretty much go to any CEO today and they'll all tell you that their responsibility is to their shareholders, not their workers (unless somehow your workers are your shareholders).

Self-regulation doesn't work.  I know.  Because of the human condition, we can never truly rely on people policing themselves.  Dependent on the particular moral leanings of an individual, we can trust them more than others, but we're all capable of evil and thus can't ever be 100% trusted.  Self-regulation doesn't work because the industry will find ways around it.  I heard it put this way once, that self regulation was like putting the mafia in charge of crime prevention.

And you know, the irony is, whether or not you believe in Judeo-Christianity, Buddhism, Shinto, or evolution...any of the major belief systems today, they'll pretty much all tell you when you die, you don't get to take all your shiny pieces of silver with you!  In the end, that's what this is all about.  Money, that thing that is here today and gone tomorrow.

RubySlippers

Right now companies with stockholder are required by law to make the best decisions to meet the demands of stockholders to make a profit and they elect the Board of Directors who pick the CEO. The simple solution to me is to add as a duty and obligation on par not superior or inferior the good of the community and nation in such business decisions under law.

This would then bring in one issue if you close a plant here or outsource a new operation or use outside the nation production the government can then act for example keep the plant from closing or demand they build their new plants in the US as long as they can make a fair profit as the government determines fair. And if they MUST move the plant outside the US they would likely need to make some provision for the community the business is in job retraining or paying for people to move or work at finding a replacement employer.

I can't think of another option to bring blue-collar jobs back the kind a High School graduate could get and it pays decent wages.

Valthazar

I agree with the points that have been made about how to bring back and keep jobs in the US.  I think we can all agree that outsourcing hurts the average American.  However, I think that even if more blue-collar jobs came back, that the era of being able to get a decent salary job as a high school graduate are long gone.  Even if more traditional factory jobs returned where a person used to be able to work their way up the hierarchy will probably require some form of higher education - simply because of the easily availability of college grads.

RubySlippers

We don't have to make it easy and what about people not cut out for college if one assumes an IQ of 115 to do college level work that is around 20% of the population, I could add 10% more for military vets and older students they tend to be motivated. If one excludes non-four year degrees ,certifications and associates, that can be larger. But even then some are not cut out for more than learning skill sets and working at something. What about them an assembly line paying even $12 an hour could be the best job they could get?

If the government needs to pull its clout and make moving jobs and building plants overseas to costly to consider and yes decide if a business is making enough money then fine, and we need a policy and laws to compel that IMHO.

Ephiral

Going back to the core argument in the OP, I see some major flaws that don't seem to have been addressed. First, there's the myth that a worker can simply choose to work for less instead of being unemployed. Problem is, there's an effective floor to the wages a worker can ask, set by what they need to live sustainably. Valthazar, you asked early on whether it was better to be entirely unemployed and getting government assistance, or making a minimal income and using assistance sparingly. I ask: Which one lets me have a full belly and a place to sleep? There's also the assumption in this that lower wages equal more jobs. This is demonstrably untrue - overworked employees doing what would previously have been considered the workload of several employees are a hallmark of minimum-wage fields. Higher wages might mean less jobs, because the profit margin is sacrosanct, but the inverse is not true because the profit margin is sacrosanct.

I'd say what we need to look at abolishing is the legal requirement to earn maximum profit, not minimum wage laws.

Second... we know what the unrestricted free labour market trends toward. It is far from a worker's paradise where everybody can find a job - it's a ridiculously abusive situation that leads to sixteen-hour days in dangerous conditions for shit pay, until your mine explodes or your factory burns down with you inside. We tried this once, and people fought and died to change it because it was that horrifying. Today, a large part of the reason for the outsourcing of manufacturing is so that companies can continue these hideously abusive practices and pad the profit margin. Why exactly do you think less restriction will lead to better outcomes for employees, in the face of the evidence?

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: RubySlippers on June 05, 2013, 07:20:33 AM
Right now companies with stockholder are required by law to make the best decisions to meet the demands of stockholders to make a profit and they elect the Board of Directors who pick the CEO. The simple solution to me is to add as a duty and obligation on par not superior or inferior the good of the community and nation in such business decisions under law.

This would then bring in one issue if you close a plant here or outsource a new operation or use outside the nation production the government can then act for example keep the plant from closing or demand they build their new plants in the US as long as they can make a fair profit as the government determines fair. And if they MUST move the plant outside the US they would likely need to make some provision for the community the business is in job retraining or paying for people to move or work at finding a replacement employer.

I can't think of another option to bring blue-collar jobs back the kind a High School graduate could get and it pays decent wages.

Let's see..

1. Best interests is determined how? Long term or short term? Today if you push long term thinking like 'building a market' or 'developing', you're on the way out. Period. Short term gain has become the mainstay thought of too many businessmen. It is easier to sell off assets than to work them.

2. How is it NOT a good idea to build an education system that puts folks in well paying jobs like plumbing, electrical work, refrigeration and such? Why is vocational schooling suddenly a bad thing. I went to school with some great friends who, pardon me for saying, weren't wired for academics

3. Why can't we use the system that MADE outsourcing profitable to make bringing jobs back? There are more breaks for multinats to hide their cash and manufacturing OUTSIDE the us. Example: GE made RECORD profits in 2010 but due to the tax laws they helped put in place they had ZERO tax bill. As they have done for many years. They pay taxes, just so little compared to their profit to be negligible compared to their profits. At the same time they are reducing their manpower inside the US, the government REWARDS them with tax breaks that smaller national companies can't utilize.

Simply put, why can't we use the economic power to reward companies to look into innovative solutions that BUILD our economy rather than Bangladesh, India, Mexico and other outsourcing capitals? Why should we allow Multinationals to game the system to hide their cash overseas while empowering this stupid self-destructive trend. There are other options.


Valthazar

I think it is clear that there are some very contrasting views when it comes to the minimum wage policies in the US – and many other related issues have arisen from this discussion.  I think we can agree to disagree, especially since there are a lot of economic justifications from both perspectives, and I doubt we will ever reach a conclusive answer.  I just want to emphasize that this is not a compassion vs. lacking compassion issue.  I would say that everyone who has posted so far in this thread holds their views (whether in agreement or not) because they feel that it is ultimately what will maximize opportunities for the poor – albeit in different ways.

I think we can all agree that there are a lot of problems with society – whether that is in the private sector or in government.  Whether it is outsourcing, corporate greed, or administrative government waste, the reality is that a lot of these issues are beyond the average people’s control.  Whether we want to acknowledge it or not, regardless of the political party in power, corporate lobbyists will always get their way.  While bringing light to these issues is certainly important, it is important to remind ourselves that the entity most in control of our personal well-being and prosperity is ultimately ourselves.

With that being said, without a doubt, I absolutely do believe that the United States is still a country of opportunity.  While the rules for achieving a stable life may have changed, and things may no longer be as simple and linear as they once were in America’s past, opportunities still exist.  Unfortunately, the changing of many laws such as the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act during the Clinton administration, and corporate deregulation during the Bush administration, along with a myriad of other societal factors related to business have created a lot of traps that unfortunately cause many people to stray away from a simple middle-class life.  Whether these traps manifest themselves as credit card debt, an unaffordable mortgage, or very large student loans, it wreaks havoc on the American Dream.

I work at a college, and we always tell students that the pathway to a stable career is not in the degree itself, but in how one manifests the knowledge and skills they have acquired as a result of that degree.  As a result, I would say that rather than hard work in and of itself yielding a stable career (although very essential), I would say that creativity and proactivity are the main factors.  For example, I would confidently say that based on some of the conversations I’ve had with people on Elliquiy, people here are extremely intelligent and articulate.  The ability to write well is an extremely valued skill in the workplace – and something that many people lack, and wish they had.

Often times, all it takes is taking the initiative to write an article about a passionate issue for the newspaper – and over time, systematically developing a rapport with the journalist, and becoming more exposed in the community through one’s writing.  Or perhaps one could take the initiative to write a review article for a publication on a topic of interest, summarizing other published articles – an extremely valued asset on a resume.  Sometimes simply getting involved in the community through volunteer or self-manufactured unpaid internships is the stepping stone to a finding one’s niche and future career trajectory. 

But at the same time – and I worry that this may be construed negatively – I feel that contemporary America’s definition of a strong work ethic is changing.  I often wonder if an individual needing to utilize public assistance is truly maximizing their capacity and skills, if they are engaging in roleplaying and video games for hours at a time, and not using that time in other free, career-enhancing activities.  I personally know many people (college graduates) on public assistance who are unfortunately stuck in this trap who desperately need a career to make their loan payments.  The reality is that they are unhappy and desperately want a job.  I realize that in this day and age, this assertion may not be deemed politically correct – but it is important to remember how many sacrifices past generations have made in order to even secure the basic semblance of American middle class life.    While we can all readily identify factors in society that led us down that path, we, as ordinary citizens should examine the things we can actually control for ourselves.

Avis habilis

Quote from: ValthazarElite on June 05, 2013, 03:07:47 PM
While we can all readily identify factors in society that led us down that path, we, as ordinary citizens should examine the things we can actually control for ourselves.

Which doesn't include the cost of living where you live, the cost of moving to where you could afford to live on what you make, the demand for any particular skill or trade, or the demand for workers at all. The idea that all, most, or even a lot of people who rely on social programs don't have jobs because they're too busy hanging out playing Halo all day isn't politically incorrect, it's dishonest.

Cthonig

Quote from: ReijiTabibito on June 05, 2013, 02:13:26 AM
Sorry to have brought it up.  It is true, though, that there needs to be worker protection.  That or a major moral overhaul of the captains of industry.  Because you can pretty much go to any CEO today and they'll all tell you that their responsibility is to their shareholders, not their workers (unless somehow your workers are your shareholders).
Indeed. Today's corporations have forgotten what a business is supposed to be.
    At its most basic a business is an entity which employees people to manufacture one or more items and/or provide one or more services. So the required people for a business are the employees and the customers. Anyone else is optional and probably a parasite on the business. Like the shareholders, most executives, and the union leaders. Unions can be useful just like management but both can often be a problem for the workers.
    We need a law that prohibits anyone not involved in the day-to-day activity of the business from having any say in the running of the business. And a law limiting the pay range from the lowest paid employee to the highest paid executive. There is no good reason for executives to be paid more than 10 times what the lowest paid worker gets. Executives are just as replaceable as anyone else.


Quote from: ValthazarElite on June 05, 2013, 03:07:47 PM
But at the same time – and I worry that this may be construed negatively – I feel that contemporary America’s definition of a strong work ethic is changing.
That already happened. For the past two decades or so a strong work ethic gets you overworked for no extra pay. While the lazy charismatic suck-up gets the raises and promotions.
    Today to get a job you need to sell yourself to prospective employers. And if you aren't good at that then a good work history doesn't matter.
    These changes have already happened. The stupid schmuck who is toxic for the business but is charismatic can rise to a position to kill a business. And once they have been a high-paid CEO they can get another high-pay CEO position. People make the false claim it was the union and the employees who killed Hostess but look at the string of bad CEOs Hostess had before it failed.
    These changes are a part of why we have a problem today and why far too many people depend upon the minimum wage laws remaining in effect.


crabmouse003

Quote from: ValthazarElite on June 05, 2013, 03:07:47 PM
I think it is clear that there are some very contrasting views when it comes to the minimum wage policies in the US – and many other related issues have arisen from this discussion.  I think we can agree to disagree, especially since there are a lot of economic justifications from both perspectives, and I doubt we will ever reach a conclusive answer.  I just want to emphasize that this is not a compassion vs. lacking compassion issue.  I would say that everyone who has posted so far in this thread holds their views (whether in agreement or not) because they feel that it is ultimately what will maximize opportunities for the poor – albeit

No. You have not been using economics in your arguments. Your arguments have been based on hypothetical examples, and speculation. The economic models show that raising the minimum wage makes good economic sense. This is why most economists believe this is a good idea.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2249040

crabmouse003

Quote from: ValthazarElite on June 05, 2013, 08:02:27 AM
I agree with the points that have been made about how to bring back and keep jobs in the US.  I think we can all agree that outsourcing hurts the average American.  However, I think that even if more blue-collar jobs came back, that the era of being able to get a decent salary job as a high school graduate are long gone.  Even if more traditional factory jobs returned where a person used to be able to work their way up the hierarchy will probably require some form of higher education - simply because of the easily availability of college grads.

This is definitely contrary to the economic consensus. Outsourcing lowers prices, and increases profits for business, enabling them to create jobs much better than the jobs being outsourced. There are losers in this deal, and it effects unskilled workers the most, which is why it's a very good idea to create social programs that eliminate poverty with the extra profit that comes from free trade.

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: crabmouse003 on June 05, 2013, 07:35:48 PM
This is definitely contrary to the economic consensus. Outsourcing lowers prices, and increases profits for business, enabling them to create jobs much better than the jobs being outsourced. There are losers in this deal, and it effects unskilled workers the most, which is why it's a very good idea to create social programs that eliminate poverty with the extra profit that comes from free trade.


I disagree. If that was the case.. when GE phased out 10,000 jobs in 08, we'd have seen a surge of new jobs. The only division in GE that has grown at all in the US is their accounting division.. with possibly their lobbyists on K street. Outsourcing improves the bottom line and that's about it. There is little or no growth coming out of outsourcing.

I watched my folk's home town all but dry up when the textile jobs at the mills were 'outsourced' to Mexico. The biggest single day layoff in NC history. The company grew.. in Mexico, they even relocated their accounting and pay divisions.

Cyrano Johnson

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on June 05, 2013, 09:24:00 PMI disagree. If that was the case.. when GE phased out 10,000 jobs in 08, we'd have seen a surge of new jobs. The only division in GE that has grown at all in the US is their accounting division.. with possibly their lobbyists on K street.

In the world of economists, that's what "creating jobs much better than the jobs being outsourced" means. It creates jobs for their kind of people: the financial services and lobbying sectors.
Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

Cyrano Johnson's ONs & OFFs
Cyrano Johnson's Apologies & Absences

Orval Wintermute

All this talk about economics and nothing about human capital, my economics tutors would be so disappointed.
Lets say that someone starting at a company is only worth wages of $5 an hour but after working there for 3 years they would be worth $12 an hour to the company.
The government then sets a minimum wage of $10 an hour, so the company is paying twice as much for new hires than it wants to so they have 3 options :
1 - Do nothing and take the financial hit.
2 - Don't take on any new workers, which might be effective in the short term but when any of the current workforce leave there isn't anyone suitable in house to replace them. Either the company eventually folds as it's workforce disappears or it's forced to pay higher wages to attract trained workers from other companies.
3 - It takes 3 years of experience to be worth at least the minimum wage, but with training a new hire can become that as efficient as someone with 3 years training in 6 months. So you train them to be worth $12 an hour but only pay them $10 an hour until you've recovered the training costs.

The third option makes the most financial sense, you have a company that has a long term plan for it's workforce and in companies where there is a good training program morale is usually higher so you have a better trained better motivated workforce than your competitors that took one of the first two options, guess which companies profits are going to be greater?

RubySlippers

Quote from: crabmouse003 on June 05, 2013, 07:35:48 PM
This is definitely contrary to the economic consensus. Outsourcing lowers prices, and increases profits for business, enabling them to create jobs much better than the jobs being outsourced. There are losers in this deal, and it effects unskilled workers the most, which is why it's a very good idea to create social programs that eliminate poverty with the extra profit that comes from free trade.

The only way we can reverse this trend is American consumers INSISTING good be made in the USA or not buy them. Dollar store items and the like perhaps not but Nike shoes or a TV could be made here it might just cost a bit more. But in the end its the consumers that affect this if companies would not make money and lose access to say the US market unless they moved jobs back they would have to move jobs back.

It might hurt some and deprive people but in the end it would force a shift in the trend and not by government action.

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: RubySlippers on June 17, 2013, 03:16:52 PM
The only way we can reverse this trend is American consumers INSISTING good be made in the USA or not buy them. Dollar store items and the like perhaps not but Nike shoes or a TV could be made here it might just cost a bit more. But in the end its the consumers that affect this if companies would not make money and lose access to say the US market unless they moved jobs back they would have to move jobs back.

It might hurt some and deprive people but in the end it would force a shift in the trend and not by government action.

Where are we going to find these American made goods? NAFTA killed a lot of manufacturing here in the US. care to point out a MAJOR textile company that makes more than underwear or novelty tshirt s here?  Hell they manufacture our military uniforms in CHINA. Lets go something simpler. how about a nationally available nail or lightbulb made in the US today?  oh right, they were shut down and the machinery shipped outside the US as well. In the 80's and 90's when it was more PROFTABLE to raid the smaller companies, buy them out and sell off assets for a quick profit.

You want to encourage folks to buy American? Encourage businesses to BUILD American.

Valthazar

No one likes outsourcing, but it goes both ways.  We live in a globalized economy, and not only are American companies moving their manufacturing overseas, but foreign companies are bringing their manufacturing here to the US.  For example, Toyota builds Lexus cars in Kentucky now (Source).  Or another example of Mexican companies moving their production to the US (Source).

In addition, many of the jobs created in India that were outsourced from the US have created massive economic booms in certain regions of the their country.  As a result, many Indian based multinational companies are creating jobs here in the US, and as a result of strict immigration policies for issuing work visas, many of these Indian companies are actually hiring American workers and creating jobs here in the US (Source).

Whether good or bad, many countries around the world are creating a middle class - once only a privilege of the West.  While American companies going abroad is betraying the American people, other companies around the world are doing the same thing and helping in the process.

Kythia

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on June 17, 2013, 05:19:26 PM
Where are we going to find these American made goods? NAFTA killed a lot of manufacturing here in the US. care to point out a MAJOR textile company that makes more than underwear or novelty tshirt s here?  Hell they manufacture our military uniforms in CHINA. Lets go something simpler. how about a nationally available nail or lightbulb made in the US today?  oh right, they were shut down and the machinery shipped outside the US as well. In the 80's and 90's when it was more PROFTABLE to raid the smaller companies, buy them out and sell off assets for a quick profit.

You want to encourage folks to buy American? Encourage businesses to BUILD American.

Mmmm.  There's really nothing special about manufacturing.  The US can make military uniforms in two ways.  They can make them in a textile plant in, say, North Carolina or they can grow them in a field in the Midwest.  The way that works is oil seeds are grown in a field in Iowa then shipped to a magical factory called "China" where they are miraculously turned into military uniforms through complicated alchemy.

The reason the US as a whole uses the factories of China is that Chinese products are cheaper.  Encouraging businesses to build American means that the US ends up with lower quality and more expensive products.  Insisting that that stops via tariffs or other protectionist measures harms farmers, miners, etc who are shipping goods to China.  Vehicles as well, apparently.  Saying "build American" misunderstands that the US isn't homogenous.  The textile plant built in one place indirectly takes money away from another.  Now sure, you're totally free to not give a rat's ass about those places.  I come from a former industrial town in the UK and you'd struggle to sell me on the negatives of taking money from the South East and reinvesting it in the North East (our demographics wrt wealth are almost the geographic inverse of the US).  But there's nothing patriotic about that.  It helps your neck of the woods but gives no net change to the country.  A tax on imports is identical to a tax on exports.

The US (and the UK.  There's a similar dialogue here.  I only mention the US as that's your land)should be focusing on the areas in which it does excel and can make money internationally rather than penalising those industries because of some romanticised view of manufacturing. 
242037

RubySlippers

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on June 17, 2013, 05:19:26 PM
Where are we going to find these American made goods? NAFTA killed a lot of manufacturing here in the US. care to point out a MAJOR textile company that makes more than underwear or novelty tshirt s here?  Hell they manufacture our military uniforms in CHINA. Lets go something simpler. how about a nationally available nail or lightbulb made in the US today?  oh right, they were shut down and the machinery shipped outside the US as well. In the 80's and 90's when it was more PROFTABLE to raid the smaller companies, buy them out and sell off assets for a quick profit.

You want to encourage folks to buy American? Encourage businesses to BUILD American.

I'm not saying this would be easy or comfortable but when the British Anti-Slavery movement wanted to fight it they stopped using blood sugar, tea and other goods from slavery sources. The Colonists earlier boycotted non-colonial goods and worked to establish sources for goods in the nation or bought from the French and Spanish and yes it hurt.

If people stopped buying such goods unless made in the USA they would eventually give in returning production here.

If one has issues buy thrift and used goods, you may need to support small producers and home businesses who could at least make clothes from imported cloth and so forth. The computer I'm using now was made from a local small business the parts I'm sure are not made in the USA in all cases but the computer was built here and used local talent do that.

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Kythia on June 17, 2013, 07:07:44 PM
Mmmm.  There's really nothing special about manufacturing.  The US can make military uniforms in two ways.  They can make them in a textile plant in, say, North Carolina or they can grow them in a field in the Midwest.  The way that works is oil seeds are grown in a field in Iowa then shipped to a magical factory called "China" where they are miraculously turned into military uniforms through complicated alchemy.

The reason the US as a whole uses the factories of China is that Chinese products are cheaper.  Encouraging businesses to build American means that the US ends up with lower quality and more expensive products.  Insisting that that stops via tariffs or other protectionist measures harms farmers, miners, etc who are shipping goods to China.  Vehicles as well, apparently.  Saying "build American" misunderstands that the US isn't homogenous.  The textile plant built in one place indirectly takes money away from another.  Now sure, you're totally free to not give a rat's ass about those places.  I come from a former industrial town in the UK and you'd struggle to sell me on the negatives of taking money from the South East and reinvesting it in the North East (our demographics wrt wealth are almost the geographic inverse of the US).  But there's nothing patriotic about that.  It helps your neck of the woods but gives no net change to the country.  A tax on imports is identical to a tax on exports.

The US (and the UK.  There's a similar dialogue here.  I only mention the US as that's your land)should be focusing on the areas in which it does excel and can make money internationally rather than penalising those industries because of some romanticised view of manufacturing.


Which mills in North Carolina are we talking about? Most of the mills that got shut down THERE had their machinery boxed up and shipped over seas. I know.. I saw the trucks leaving the plants in Concord and Kannapolis. In fact if you were to visit Kannapolis, and had visited it prior to 2005-2008, you wouldn't recognize it.  I don't. Don't recognize Concord or Erwin North Carolina compared to what they looked like when I was a kid either. Concord is gentrifying as the sprawl spreads out from Charlotte.. so they are adapting but last time I passed thru Erwin.. (which isn't conveniently located to a massive hightway leading to the biggest growing cities in North Carolina) it looked like a ghost town.

I find that if you take away the incentives to ignore your country as a possible spot to put up factories by stopping rewarding outsourcing and exporting jobs that the companies might actually turn back to investing in the US rather than paying dimes on the dollar to build new mills overseas. 

I have pointed out in past posts in other threads that there ARE companies within the US that manufacture material and profit. The whole reason I got to live in Ireland for 2 1/2 years was due to protective tarrifs measures within the EEC that were designed to build industry in their member countries. If you wanted to avoid the tarrifs, you set up businesses within the member nations.


That isnt' want I'm pushing for. I'm proposing simply making tax breaks that encourage US businesses to look overseas and look to investing in the US. It can be profitable. You might be surprised if you look at new methods of manufacturing, small scale plants that have a smaller delivery foot print. Automation is already used, for example in the car assembly plants mentioned in an earlier post.

The problem is.. unless you offer a discrete financial incentive to innovate and change it might not be profitable for them to change. Offering tax breaks to relocate to underdeveloped US cities would do a lot. Add in City, County and State concessions on taxes and support and you can do amazing things. A company with 200 jobs might not sound like much.. but in a town like.. say Erwin NC where unemployment went nuclear after the textile collapse that could do a LOT.

RubySlippers

That is why there are one  option pure Consumer Pressure the US is a major market if it has the buyers stop buying until goods are made in the US it will force many companies back and foreign companies to build plants here, and as a non-government action would avoid a trade war. But Americans would need to practice thrift, make their own clothing if needed, be willing to do without things and do that for a few years in enough numbers to matter say 50% of the population or more.

Kythia

I think you're misunderstanding my point a little, Callie.  Yes, NC has lost its textile industry but that's because it has moved.  Changing economic patterns have made it easier for the US to grow their uniforms in Nebraska, not to spin them in North Carolina.

Bringing that manufacturing back into the US is going to harm the US's exports to China, obviously.  It's a zero sum game in that sense.  Cutting all foreign imports of manufactured goods (which I realise is a step further than what you propose) is going to rescue former manufacturing towns, sure, but it will have the same effect on the primary producers that are shipping materials out of the US (not to mention dock workers, say, and the other related industries.  Won't someone think of the Excise Duty officers?)  All you'd be doing is shifting the geographic location of ghost towns, not removing their presence.  Sure, if that's the goal then that's groovy.  But if the goal is to help the US as a whole then fighting economic change isn't the way forwards.  Wealth distribution and transfer payments are a much better way of doing that then the blunt tool of protectionism.
242037

Oniya

Quote from: RubySlippers on June 19, 2013, 06:14:41 AM
That is why there are one  option pure Consumer Pressure the US is a major market if it has the buyers stop buying until goods are made in the US it will force many companies back and foreign companies to build plants here, and as a non-government action would avoid a trade war. But Americans would need to practice thrift, make their own clothing if needed, be willing to do without things and do that for a few years in enough numbers to matter say 50% of the population or more.

You know what, Ruby?  I challenge you to do that.  Check every article of clothing that you have and don't use anything that doesn't say 'Made in the US.'  Everything you buy (even in the thrift stores - check those labels!), everything you eat (local produce only!) everything you make use of (because you've said that your parents foot your bills).

You keep telling everyone you have all the answers and honestly, I think you're blowing smoke.  You haven't got a clue about the real world and the world economy.  You'd happily use imported goods as long as someone else was paying for them.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Zakharra

Quote from: Cthonig on June 05, 2013, 04:57:59 PM
   We need a law that prohibits anyone not involved in the day-to-day activity of the business from having any say in the running of the business. And a law limiting the pay range from the lowest paid employee to the highest paid executive. There is no good reason for executives to be paid more than 10 times what the lowest paid worker gets. Executives are just as replaceable as anyone else

I got a problem with this suggestion. It seems like it would cut out all of the share holders from being able to influence the company they have stock in and would put all of the power in the board of directors or mangers in the company. It's also disturbing to think that a law could be passed that would limit the pay structure of a private corporation.  That's a hell of a lot of power to be giving the government when they would be able to dictate who gets paid what in the corporate pay structure from the top on down (I cannot see Congress or the Dept of Labor not using a law like that to start dictating the companies entire pay structure.)

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Kythia on June 19, 2013, 06:30:51 AM
I think you're misunderstanding my point a little, Callie.  Yes, NC has lost its textile industry but that's because it has moved.  Changing economic patterns have made it easier for the US to grow their uniforms in Nebraska, not to spin them in North Carolina.

Bringing that manufacturing back into the US is going to harm the US's exports to China, obviously.  It's a zero sum game in that sense.  Cutting all foreign imports of manufactured goods (which I realise is a step further than what you propose) is going to rescue former manufacturing towns, sure, but it will have the same effect on the primary producers that are shipping materials out of the US (not to mention dock workers, say, and the other related industries.  Won't someone think of the Excise Duty officers?)  All you'd be doing is shifting the geographic location of ghost towns, not removing their presence.  Sure, if that's the goal then that's groovy.  But if the goal is to help the US as a whole then fighting economic change isn't the way forwards.  Wealth distribution and transfer payments are a much better way of doing that then the blunt tool of protectionism.

Nowhere did I say that Tarrifs were the fix. If I did, or implied i did,I apologize. What I said was we need to stop giving companies breaks for moving off shore and start rewarding those tax breaks to companies willing to invest and innovate in the US. The corporate raiders of the 80's and 90 's came right out of deregulating industry and removing tax breaks for things like R&D and investing in your own infrastructure.  It became much more profitable to liquidate property than enjoy a tax break on it, particularly when you got someone on K street buying politicians to repeal even more regulations.

When you got big companies gaming our tax code to be rewarded for off shoring jobs and capital, wouldn't it be more prudent to reduce the overall tax rate (which they aren't paying anyway) and give tax credits for doing business HERE rather than there?  You are going to get companies like GE to invest in communities unless its in their interest and right now the law rewards out sourcing and tax havens.

Kythia

I had read you to support tariffs but rereading over your posts it does look like that was a position I was projecting on you somewhat.  So I deflect your apology and offer one of my own in its place.

It's an interesting position.  One I disagree with for reasons I've spoilered below.  I've spoilered because I'm only mentioning them in case you're interested not to continue the conversation per se, I think we've reached the point where we just have to shake hands and say we don't agree here.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide
My objection is that this is still a zero sum game.  lets take India as an outsourcing destination for US jobs.  That job needs doing - taking the world as a closed economy, there is no gain or loss of jobs possible, its just where that job sits.  And while conditions are shitty in factories and doubtless in call centres in India I would rather an Indian person had that job than an American because the social safety net in the US is better than an India - its less of a handicap in the US.  Not of course that Im saying its all sweetness and light in the US, just that starvation is less of a threat.

And this isn't anti-Americanism.  The same argument applies to the UK or any first world nation
242037

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Kythia on June 19, 2013, 04:53:55 PM
I had read you to support tariffs but rereading over your posts it does look like that was a position I was projecting on you somewhat.  So I deflect your apology and offer one of my own in its place.

It's an interesting position.  One I disagree with for reasons I've spoilered below.  I've spoilered because I'm only mentioning them in case you're interested not to continue the conversation per se, I think we've reached the point where we just have to shake hands and say we don't agree here.

My objection is that this is still a zero sum game.  lets take India as an outsourcing destination for US jobs.  That job needs doing - taking the world as a closed economy, there is no gain or loss of jobs possible, its just where that job sits.  And while conditions are shitty in factories and doubtless in call centres in India I would rather an Indian person had that job than an American because the social safety net in the US is better than an India - its less of a handicap in the US.  Not of course that Im saying its all sweetness and light in the US, just that starvation is less of a threat.

And this isn't anti-Americanism.  The same argument applies to the UK or any first world nation

Thing is.. this arguement works if you're exporting jobs to new regions to develop new markets. More often than not.. the business outsourcing their manufacturing, accounting, manufacturing or whatever AREN'T, they are using them as a cheap means of production/labor pool and returning the goods and services to the first world nations.

The growth of their market to India, Bangladesh, China, whereever is SECONDARY to the fact that the country is providing a cheaper method of maufacture, service or labor pool than can be found in the US with the CURRENT business models and practices. You want to grow your primary market, you don't dimish the pool of potential buyers by diminishing it. If the government can find a way to incentifvise the re-development of the US Manufacturing/Labor sector with new models of production they will. You're not going to get a business giving up what works without a way to increase their bottom line.

RubySlippers

Quote from: Oniya on June 19, 2013, 08:54:33 AM
You know what, Ruby?  I challenge you to do that.  Check every article of clothing that you have and don't use anything that doesn't say 'Made in the US.'  Everything you buy (even in the thrift stores - check those labels!), everything you eat (local produce only!) everything you make use of (because you've said that your parents foot your bills).

You keep telling everyone you have all the answers and honestly, I think you're blowing smoke.  You haven't got a clue about the real world and the world economy.  You'd happily use imported goods as long as someone else was paying for them.

You know my clothes are made in the US my underclothes from a small US company made in the US, my clothes I wear I largely I make myself and my shoes are yes made in the US in fact moccasins made on a reservation by a leather crafter and flip flops from another local crafter. I use mass transit so can't help that but the buses are made in the US. I at least try to encourage American business as far as I can but to the level I suggested in needs to be far bigger to have the impact.

But my point is pretty clear if you want American manufacturing and bring those jobs back consumer pressure en masse will likely do it. You said there is no clothing and textile industry right now to meet the need but if manufacturers lost all sales in the USA unless those clothes are made HERE they would have two options lose all that money or reopen factories. As for the goods being poorer - prove it. But what other option is there any government action could start a trade dispute and not likely forthcoming.

May I ask do you think it was morale when British subjects didn't by slave made sugar and tea OR the colonists refused to buy British goods? Yes or no. If no then what is so bad with my idea all I'm saying is tap the American people to make up the loss you can make clothes, buy leather crafted goods, fine people able to build computers and restore them. The idea is to do as much economic harm to companies as possible so as to force more companies to come here to make goods if they don't they lose profits likely a good amount.

Kythia

Quote from: RubySlippers on June 22, 2013, 12:24:45 PM
You know my clothes are made in the US my underclothes from a small US company made in the US, my clothes I wear I largely I make myself and my shoes are yes made in the US in fact moccasins made on a reservation by a leather crafter and flip flops from another local crafter. I use mass transit so can't help that but the buses are made in the US. I at least try to encourage American business as far as I can but to the level I suggested in needs to be far bigger to have the impact.

But my point is pretty clear if you want American manufacturing and bring those jobs back consumer pressure en masse will likely do it. You said there is no clothing and textile industry right now to meet the need but if manufacturers lost all sales in the USA unless those clothes are made HERE they would have two options lose all that money or reopen factories. As for the goods being poorer - prove it. But what other option is there any government action could start a trade dispute and not likely forthcoming.

May I ask do you think it was morale when British subjects didn't by slave made sugar and tea OR the colonists refused to buy British goods? Yes or no. If no then what is so bad with my idea all I'm saying is tap the American people to make up the loss you can make clothes, buy leather crafted goods, fine people able to build computers and restore them. The idea is to do as much economic harm to companies as possible so as to force more companies to come here to make goods if they don't they lose profits likely a good amount.

*sigh*

OK, firstly a load of hi-tec goods literally cannot be made in the USA.  "Finding someone able to build computers and restore them" is.... is not how literally any part of that works.  There is a colossal difference between the guy you know who can replace your motherboard and large scale manufacturing.  So lets rule that out straight off the bat.  You can't have any more complicated electrical goods, at least not for a generation. 

Lets put aside the horrific economic catastrophe caused by every single US worker refusing to use their foreign made work computers, Wall Street resorting to the abacus could be quite funny and surely not every office uses a computer?

Clothes, though.  lets return to clothes.  You say to "prove it" that clothes will be poorer.  I can't tell if you're being facetious there or not.  I certainly hope so but just in case:

The cost of an item of clothing is [labour costs]+[raw materials costs]+[profits].  Obviously each of those could be broken down, but those are the main components.  Now, Callie has talked about how US textile plants have relocated to Mexico.  They didn't do that to practice their Spanish or because they love Tequila, they did it because labour costs are lower.  Meaning the total garment price is lower.  Manufacturing in the US has higher labour costs.  So to keep [labour costs]+[raw materials costs]+[profits] the same then either profits or raw materials need to be cheaper.  That decision - the decision of how much profits are made by the company directors - is made by the company directors.  Profits won't go down so ba da bing ba da boom.  Raw materials costs go down, garments or of lower quality.

Why can't price go up you ask?  Because thats a tax on the poorest people in society.  Increasing the cost of such necessities as clothing hits people who are already struggling hardest and so won't be allowed to happen.  Thrift stores sell clothes that are donated.  With clothes being shittier quality, fewer will last until donation for one and for two there simply isn't the infrastructure to clothe America solely through thrift shops.  So price remains the same, quality goes down.

A small to price to pay, you might think.  Sure, for you.  Bangladesh is literally one of the poorest countries in the world, so much so that when the US tried to cut down on clothes made in Bangladeshi sweatshops to protect workers their government intervened to tell them to shut up.  Taking that industry away will cause famine and human misery on an untold scale so that you can feel better about your clothes being made in a highly automated, low staffed factory in the US. 

So, eventually, other governments will step in and tell the US to just knock it off.  Change the rules about what can have a "Made in the US" sticker.  You seem to think that because this isn't a government initiative that foreign governments will not be able to do anything other than wring their hands in despair.  I would suggest you haven't really understood anything about the history of the last few hundred years.  Hell, you even mention the boycott of British goods by the Aerican colonists.  What happened next?  Remind me, did the British government say "welp, nothing we can do here?"  Only, I seem to remember reading about some sort of war.  When Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated in Sarajevo, did the world at large say "not a government action, nothing to see here" or did World War 1 start.  Governments are held responsible for the actions of their citizens all the time.  You're starting a trade war.  God, look at the Opium Wars in Hong Kong and China. 

Your idea is unworkable, would cripple the US unless enough exceptions were made to render the entire idea pointless, would spark a trade war and would destroy industrialising countries.  It's not a go, Ruby.
242037

Trieste

Not only that but a company that's hemorrhaging (the fuck kind of spelling is that word?!) money will not exactly be like, "Let's spend MORE money to open up factories! WHEEE!"

I do understand and, to a point, support the sentiment behind it but ... yeah.

Ephiral

Quote from: Kythia on June 22, 2013, 02:25:41 PMOK, firstly a load of hi-tec goods literally cannot be made in the USA.  "Finding someone able to build computers and restore them" is.... is not how literally any part of that works.  There is a colossal difference between the guy you know who can replace your motherboard and large scale manufacturing.  So lets rule that out straight off the bat.  You can't have any more complicated electrical goods, at least not for a generation.

Also, they will be much much more scarce and expensive - PCB manufacture is a pretty hazardous process, which is cheaper in China because China has no fucks to give about worker safety. In the US, these factories will either be seriously illegal, or producing less at higher cost.

RubySlippers

Okay could computers be ASSEMBLED in the US? I get for some things its cheaper to make in China but couldn't you put the things together here?

And I have a simple question you all want jobs here in the USA but it seems to me your the ones making excuses for the obvious American consumers are the ones costing us these jobs, with no market which is the point of the boycott idea the companies won't have much choice. As for the costs of building here states and communities are fighting for factories and other businesses they will get help. In fact since would apply to all goods Chinese manufacturers might need to build factories here to sell their foreign goods. It would work.

And even if thrift store and used goods are what people use and those are made abroad your not buying NEW goods are you the goal in my view should be to buy American, but no one seems to like that and it would be to hard. When did to hard mean not do the right thing there is precedent to use consumer economic clout as free citizens to say we don't approve of taxation without representation or we don't approve of this sugar made by slaves. I say we need a moral disgust at the outsourcing of jobs with that same rigor. Many of you sheep disgust me add to that your allowing foreign governments by supporting this to exploit people, poison the planet and makes our nation very vulnerable if we do enter a major war. I'm serious if your patriotic then its about American labor and our ability to build and maintain war production  as much as possible. If you care about progressive issues then there  is labor rights, the environment and fair pay for fair work.

Kythia

Did you read the linked article?  Its part of a whole series of seven explaining exactly why that's the case. 

They can't be assembled in the US.  The issue is that because they're not the US lacks the experience to put it together.  This isn't a matter of cost or anything, its a matter of process engineers with the relevant skills.  They'll need training - why I say nothing for a generation.  The US lacks the skills to make this stuff.  Sure, we can say that's a consequence of outsourcing (actually the argument of the linked article) but that doesn't change the fact that it exists.

Saying "it would work" isn't an argument, Ruby.  What makes you think it would.  Trieste points out that your proposed idea would cost companies money, you're saying they should spend even more to build new factories rather than just shrugging and selling to the EU, to Canada, to Asia, to one of the numerous other markets.  I'm not saying it wouldn't - I lack a whole load of knowledge to make that statement one way or the other - but a flat statement that it would is idealism not debate.

Another side issue is that I'm British and Ephiral is Canadian.  We don't necessarily want more jobs in the US, we're not making our nation more vulnerable, etc.  Try to remember other countries exist, and maybe calling people sheep, unpatriotic, etc isn't strictly appropriate.
242037

Ephiral

Quote from: RubySlippers on June 23, 2013, 07:59:07 AM
And I have a simple question you all want jobs here in the USA but it seems to me your the ones making excuses for the obvious American consumers are the ones costing us these jobs, with no market which is the point of the boycott idea the companies won't have much choice. As for the costs of building here states and communities are fighting for factories and other businesses they will get help. In fact since would apply to all goods Chinese manufacturers might need to build factories here to sell their foreign goods. It would work.

I don't care about jobs in the USA. I care about there not being catastrophic upheaval that will spill over the border. And no, it wouldn't work, because you're completely missing the point - consumers doing this would wind up exerting more pressure on themselves to give it up (through the overnight loss of all advanced electronics, the starvation brought on by a sudden lack of food imports, the huge amount of international pressure to end the massive trade war they just started, etc) than on companies that will take less of a hit by just ignoring the US market than by building the massive amount of infrastructure your plan would require.

Oniya challenged you to only use American-made goods, so you could see the massive difficulty of what you're proposing. Your response was "My clothes are American!". Good for you. What about the food you eat, the structure of the house you live in, the car your parents drive (chances are it's either Asian or Canadian, regardless of what the badge says), and, oh, I don't know, the computer you're using to post this? How dare you call others sheep in the face of such blatant hypocrisy?

Kythia

Quote from: Ephiral on June 23, 2013, 10:32:12 AM
I don't care about jobs in the USA. I care about there not being catastrophic upheaval that will spill over the border. And no, it wouldn't work, because you're completely missing the point - consumers doing this would wind up exerting more pressure on themselves to give it up (through the overnight loss of all advanced electronics, the starvation brought on by a sudden lack of food imports, the huge amount of international pressure to end the massive trade war they just started, etc) than on companies that will take less of a hit by just ignoring the US market than by building the massive amount of infrastructure your plan would require.

Oniya challenged you to only use American-made goods, so you could see the massive difficulty of what you're proposing. Your response was "My clothes are American!". Good for you. What about the food you eat, the structure of the house you live in, the car your parents drive (chances are it's either Asian or Canadian, regardless of what the badge says), and, oh, I don't know, the computer you're using to post this? How dare you call others sheep in the face of such blatant hypocrisy?

And just to expand on Ephiral's point a little - your response was "I make my own clothes, hence they're American"  That's not creating jobs or an industry, that's taking a step backwards in time to rural self-sufficiency.  Granted in your proposed system everyone would have the time to make their own clothes (because they'd have no jobs taking up their day) but its not a long term solution. 
242037

TaintedAndDelish

#106
"They can't be assembled in the US.  The issue is that because they're not the US lacks the experience to put it together. "

Your average PC could be assembled by a child or unskilled worker if done on a production line. Each worker would just be popping one piece in before its passed to the next. The entire process would consist of nothing more than snapping, plugging and screwing parts in.  In a case like this its brainless work. As for tools, you can take most computers ( I can vouch for intel based workstations/servers, laptops, Sun servers ) apart with one or two screwdrivers. ( typically a medium sized phillips head and a smaller one )

Designing a computer from scratch (with pre-made components and boards) takes some knowledge and testing, but that kind of work would be isolated to a small team or possibly outsourced if you really wanted to keep costs down and did not have the know-how to do it yourself. The work involved includes knowing which components to select to fit business/marketing requirements ( ie, targeting a price range and level of functionality, optimizing for cost, power, speed, etc.. ), testing the prototype, ensuring that all drivers and software is compatible and configured properly and that it works etc...

Kythia

Yeah, that was true in Victorian England, it no longer is.  Production lines are highly automated things requiring trained process engineers.  To be profitable at least.  Think about how your idea of a production line would work in the modern day.  Each person requires a wage so labour costs would be through the roof.  Your image of a load of people sat side by side and each doing the same task over and over simply isn't how it works any more.

Once again, you can't extrapolate from you or some guy you know who upgrades your computer to a massive industrial process.
242037

RubySlippers

Okay lets redirect this a bit what kind of jobs are we providing or planning to provide as a society for those who tested in High School at say the 40th percentile or less in English and mathematics the real key areas for most manufacturing still done in the US, higher skill level ones. And note these students are hardly college material and may have issues with trades (not always but could). Even joining the armed forces going career is less likely according to my father they at least need people with the ability to be broadly trained.

In the 1950's these students would work on an assembly line with blue collar jobs that paid decently enough to support a family, so what are the options?


Ephiral

Quote from: RubySlippers on June 24, 2013, 02:30:30 PM
Okay lets redirect this a bit what kind of jobs are we providing or planning to provide as a society for those who tested in High School at say the 40th percentile or less in English and mathematics the real key areas for most manufacturing still done in the US, higher skill level ones. And note these students are hardly college material and may have issues with trades (not always but could). Even joining the armed forces going career is less likely according to my father they at least need people with the ability to be broadly trained.

In the 1950's these students would work on an assembly line with blue collar jobs that paid decently enough to support a family, so what are the options?
You're doing an awful lot of work to avoid saying "I was wrong". You had a bad solution in search of a problem. That said, the answer to this ine is pretty simple. You're asking about unskilled labour, which still exists. The actual problem is how to walk it back to the point where you can have job security and benefits as an unskilled worker.

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: RubySlippers on June 24, 2013, 02:30:30 PM
Okay lets redirect this a bit what kind of jobs are we providing or planning to provide as a society for those who tested in High School at say the 40th percentile or less in English and mathematics the real key areas for most manufacturing still done in the US, higher skill level ones. And note these students are hardly college material and may have issues with trades (not always but could). Even joining the armed forces going career is less likely according to my father they at least need people with the ability to be broadly trained.

In the 1950's these students would work on an assembly line with blue collar jobs that paid decently enough to support a family, so what are the options?

In the 1950s.. corporations paid their corporate taxes, we had groups invested in their infrastructure, the government had massive work projects and plans for more. You can't compare the 1950s industrial economy to our corporately raided/pillaged and looted economy of today. In those days it took up to a month for a check in California to clear a New York bank, mail order was something that could take literally months, and logistical planning hadn't ever imagined some of the delivery challenges we take for granted today.

Why don't you try and use a modern industrial economy like.. say.. German rather than saying 'in the good old days.. afore I was born...'