Economic Discussion of Minimum Wage Laws

[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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. 

[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]

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]

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.

[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]

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.

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]

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.