Higher Minimum Wages

JOEJOEJOE

farfromglorified wrote:

So we should force individuals to suffer the costs of a minimum wage to prevent them from suffering the costs of welfare or public assistance? And there's no possible alternative to this?

THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES TO HELP SOME, BUT OTHERS WILL ALWAYS HAVE NEEDS FOR WHICH WE CARRY THE LOAD.
(I AM WRITING IN CAPS TO MAKE IT EASIER TO DIFFERENTIATE...NOT YELLING!0



Ok. Can you help me understand something? Why is it that people always damn the rich about the income value gap between rich and poor, but damn the poor about the labor value gap between rich and poor? How can the first be immoral, but the latter not be?

PEOPLE WILL ALWAYS DAMN THE RICH, JUST AS PEOPLE WILL ALWAYS DAMN THE YANKESS, AS OPPOSED TO THE DEVIL RAYS.



I don't deal in bribes. Sorry.

It is indeed a bribe, but even if someone doesn't wish to foot the bill for others, isn't it worth doing so that your way of life won't ever be threatened?

farfromglorified

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

I appreciate your positions, which make perfect sense.

But, if the underclass population continues to grow, do you think that those people could one day revolt (in terms of violence, crime, etc), and thus, diminish your quality of life?

Sure. But I also think the same people could revolt through political means and also diminish my qualitiy of life. Welfare, the minimum wage, universal health care, etc, are little different to me than basic armed robbery. The only difference is that the former is more orderly than the latter. And the mindsets and desires behind them are not going to go away regardless of what bribes we pay. The lists of demands and complaints will simply get longer and more shrill and, eventually, something will have to give.

As an far-out analogy, imagine if you had neighbors who refused to cut their lawns, maintain their property, etc., and thus, it lessened the property value/ appeal of your neighborhood. Would you take any action?

No. Hence the word their. The suburban drive to maximize property values through the minimizations of individual freedoms are just as corrupt as the urban drive to maximize incomes through the minimizations of individual freedoms.

When I was shopping for my current house, I refused to entertain any home or property subject to restrictive covenant. I wish I had the same freedoms when shopping for a government.

Obviously, it is up to your neighbors to maintain their property, but if they refused, would you help them out so that you home would not lose property value?

In some cases, yes. But I would help them out through actions correctly classified as "help", not actions wherein I simply force them to do what I want with their properties.

farfromglorified

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

It is indeed a bribe, but even if someone doesn't wish to foot the bill for others, isn't it worth doing so that your way of life won't ever be threatened?

What's up with this line of questioning? Are you that afraid, or is there some intellectual or logical purpose to the question?

This is a mafia mindset that I simply can't subscribe to. When one makes a deal with the devil, one is destined to lose. Footing someone's bill may buy you some time, but you'll likely lose it all in the end, just as you likely would in a revolt.

polaris

what's the difference between a raise in minimum wage and a raise in general? ... granted a raise (whether merited or not) is supposed to reflect an individuals contribution to the overall production ... is it so hard to believe that people who are being paid minimum wage are the most likely to contribute more than their pay?

farfromglorified

polaris wrote:

what's the difference between a raise in minimum wage and a raise in general? ... granted a raise (whether merited or not) is supposed to reflect an individuals contribution to the overall production ...

You correctly answered your own question here.

is it so hard to believe that people who are being paid minimum wage are the most likely to contribute more than their pay?

It is hard. If the people being paid minimum wage were being paid a wage that "reflects an individuals contribution to the overall production", there would be no need for a minimum wage.

cincybearcat

polaris wrote:

what's the difference between a raise in minimum wage and a raise in general? ... granted a raise (whether merited or not) is supposed to reflect an individuals contribution to the overall production ... is it so hard to believe that people who are being paid minimum wage are the most likely to contribute more than their pay?

A raise in the minimum wage results in a raise for everyone based upon what exactly? Based upon the whim of the government, it's not data/production driven.

cincybearcat

flywallyfly wrote:

The minimum wage has been raised numerous times in the past, and I know its shocking, the end of times didnt happen.

What a great answer. Thanks for sharing.

Where exactly did someone mention the end of times other than you?

Wars have happened many times in the past and they didn;t result in the end of times, so stop worrying about Iraq.

Tax breaks have occurred many times in the past.....

Not a very good argument for anything.

Pacomc79

polaris wrote:

what's the difference between a raise in minimum wage and a raise in general? ... granted a raise (whether merited or not) is supposed to reflect an individuals contribution to the overall production ... is it so hard to believe that people who are being paid minimum wage are the most likely to contribute more than their pay?

Inflation. A raise is individual. this is across the board, if you are at the bottom, you are at the bottom for a reason. Rasing the floor eventually raises the cost of everything effectively negating any positive impact of that rise in pay level.

The only way for people to pull themselves out of the minimum wage is to make themselves more valuable, the vast majority of all wage earners, may start at minimum, and then through promotion, or merit raises based on time served experience etc (unless one is dumb enough to join a union and sign a contract procluding one from individual performance based raises choosing rather to base a salary on a minimum wage)

Basically unless something is physically or mentally wrong with you, there is absolutely no reason anyone will be a minimum wage earner for longer than about 6 months, If the company won't give you a raise after that, you need to go elsewhere. If something is mentally or physically wrong with a person, they should be collecting some kind of government benifit like diabled social security anyway

It's nice in theory, to raise the minimum, it's a nice thing to say..."I like to help people at the bottom or the common man" for a politician, in reality, it's simply short sighted, people might love seeing that extra 40 bucks in their paycheck a week, and vote for the ass hole that did it for them, but in reality, they haven't been pulled out of any situation, you still can barely live on the minimum (if you can currently) and it's still a shitty existance, so you've effectively emboldened a voter base, but you haven't really done anything but increase inflation and keep them where they are.

This is one reason I'm all about changing the taxation system. I'm all about teaching people how to live frugally, sensibly, responsibly. If you aren't living in debt you are never poor in this nation.

it's one reason the Fairtax is so brilliant. The prebate takes care of everyone's basic needs, there is no tax on used goods, embedded taxes are eliminated, the current ridiculously complicated tax code is eliminated, you can't supercede the tax code for wealthy individuals with good lawyers, you can't get around it and it's at least revenue neutral. So not only do we have our entire paychecks with some choice in how we pay our tax money, we also are giving the government at least as much as we are currently (probably more)

JOEJOEJOE

farfromglorified wrote:

Sure. But I also think the same people could revolt through political means and also diminish my qualitiy of life. Welfare, the minimum wage, universal health care, etc, are little different to me than basic armed robbery. The only difference is that the former is more orderly than the latter. And the mindsets and desires behind them are not going to go away regardless of what bribes we pay. The lists of demands and complaints will simply get longer and more shrill and, eventually, something will have to give.

I agree that some will always want more, but if the "noveau poor" start turning to crime, things will get worse. We need to find an efficient economic point where govt assistance will help lessen class/politcal strife. At some point, no amount of assistance will prevent people from turing to crime, so they will always be there.

Would you rather fund the disenfranchised via govt payments or the diminishment of society ( I am sure you and I could more reasonably fund it by giving up our dough at gunpoint (G-d forbid), as opposed to the funds going thru govt processes!)



No. Hence the word their. The suburban drive to maximize property values through the minimizations of individual freedoms are just as corrupt as the urban drive to maximize incomes through the minimizations of individual freedoms.

I am all for individual freedoms, but if the exercise of said freedoms diminish the enjoyment of others, and if people don't realize that, where does it get us?

When I was shopping for my current house, I refused to entertain any home or property subject to restrictive covenant. I wish I had the same freedoms when shopping for a government.



In some cases, yes. But I would help them out through actions correctly classified as "help", not actions wherein I simply force them to do what I want with their properties.

Hopefully the offer to help them would be an eye opener to them.

farfromglorified

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

Hopefully the offer to help them would be an eye opener to them.

Unfortunately, that's backwards. The person who doesn't have their "eyes open" when asking for help is usually less likely to have the opened when you've done their work for them. What you're talking about is shame. As proven by the Catholics, shame can work pretty well in the context of control and self-restraint, but shame doesn't really make for healthy societies.

polaris

farfromglorified wrote:

You correctly answered your own question here.



It is hard. If the people being paid minimum wage were being paid a wage that "reflects an individuals contribution to the overall production", there would be no need for a minimum wage.

is the concept of minimum wage also related to the surplus availability of labour? ... i mean ... i can make a fortune on a product and pay someone minimum wage if there are plenty of people who are willing to accept the pay regardless of that individual's contribution to the product ...

polaris

cincybearcat wrote:

A raise in the minimum wage results in a raise for everyone based upon what exactly? Based upon the whim of the government, it's not data/production driven.

but the gov't sets the minimum wage as well ... what is that based on? ... i assumed it was related to the costs of living ... if you're going to have a minimum wage to begin with and not let "the market" dictate that wage - it has to be adjusted to something ...

as said before - i'm no economist by any stretch - just posing the thoughts that come to my mind ...

Rushlimbo

cincybearcat wrote:

What a great answer. Thanks for sharing.

Where exactly did someone mention the end of times other than you?

Wars have happened many times in the past and they didn;t result in the end of times, so stop worrying about Iraq.

Tax breaks have occurred many times in the past.....

Not a very good argument for anything.

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

farfromglorified

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

Would you rather fund the disenfranchised via govt payments or the diminishment of society ( I am sure you and I could more reasonably fund it by giving up our dough at gunpoint (G-d forbid), as opposed to the funds going thru govt processes!)

I'd rather have neither. And I think that's possible. I don't see it as an either-or situation.

I am all for individual freedoms, but if the exercise of said freedoms diminish the enjoyment of others, and if people don't realize that, where does it get us?

I'm not sure I understand your question. "Individual freedom" isn't some blanket statement wherein all behaviors are justified. A person who uses their "individual freedom" to prevent someone else from expressing their own has demonstrated that "individual freedom" has no value to them. So society has a right to seek justice in the case wherein someone acts in a manner demonstrating that they have no interests in freedom, happiness, or life -- the core human rights and values.

Those cases are the exception, however, not the rule. Most people use their freedoms in an exceptionally constructive manner. I fail to see why those people should have to bribe and steal in order to prevent bribery and theft.

polaris

Pacomc79 wrote:

Inflation. A raise is individual. this is across the board, if you are at the bottom, you are at the bottom for a reason. Rasing the floor eventually raises the cost of everything effectively negating any positive impact of that rise in pay level.

edited for space

This is one reason I'm all about changing the taxation system. I'm all about teaching people how to live frugally, sensibly, responsibly. If you aren't living in debt you are never poor in this nation.

but inflation happens regardless of minimum wage ... so, while the cost of goods go up - how are people at a low wage supposed to compensate?

farfromglorified

polaris wrote:

is the concept of minimum wage also related to the surplus availability of labour? ... i mean ... i can make a fortune on a product and pay someone minimum wage if there are plenty of people who are willing to accept the pay regardless of that individual's contribution to the product ...

If there are "plenty of people who are willing to accept the pay", then that pay is either at or close to the value of that labor. I'm confused as to how that statement is linked to this question:

"is the concept of minimum wage also related to the surplus availability of labour?"

Are you asking if the minimum wage contributes to unemployment or are you asking if the minimum wage contributes to situations wherein workers don't labor as hard as they could, or are you asking something entirely different?

Pacomc79

polaris wrote:

but inflation happens regardless of minimum wage ... so, while the cost of goods go up - how are people at a low wage supposed to compensate?

increase their work experience, abilities etc. No one should be settling for a minimum wage job. Yeah you might start at Mcdonalds as a fry cook (they pay about 7.75 I think) but in 3-6 months given the average Mc'd's turnover...you're a manager. Same thing with bagging groceries.

Once you're a manager, you have management experience and so on and so forth.


There are plenty of horrid companies to work for and plenty of great ones... I think Whole Foods and Home Depot have profit sharing for every employee. I know where I'd be bagging groceries or slicing fish.

polaris

farfromglorified wrote:

If there are "plenty of people who are willing to accept the pay", then that pay is either at or close to the value of that labor. I'm confused as to how that statement is linked to this question:

"is the concept of minimum wage also related to the surplus availability of labour?"

Are you asking if the minimum wage contributes to unemployment or are you asking if the minimum wage contributes to situations wherein workers don't labor as hard as they could, or are you asking something entirely different?

i thought it was said that the value of pay is related to one's contribution to production not dictated by supply and demand?

i'm asking if there is an abundance of cheap labour - that the wage itself is not dictated by one's contribution rather the demand similar to what i wrote above ...

cincybearcat

Rushlimbo wrote:

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Would have loved to see your resonse before you deleted it.

polaris

Pacomc79 wrote:

increase their work experience, abilities etc. No one should be settling for a minimum wage job. Yeah you might start at Mcdonalds as a fry cook (they pay about 7.75 I think) but in 3-6 months given the average Mc'd's turnover...you're a manager. Same thing with bagging groceries.

Once you're a manager, you have management experience and so on and so forth.


There are plenty of horrid companies to work for and plenty of great ones... I think Whole Foods and Home Depot have profit sharing for every employee. I know where I'd be bagging groceries or slicing fish.

that may be so ... but opportunities need to exist ... if every fry cook, burger flipper wants to become a manager at the arches - then they would need to turn those positions over significantly ...

i see your point and i would hope anyone making a low wage would aspire and have the opportunities to aspire to a higher wage - however, even at your 6 mth timeframe ... how is someone to operate if that minimum wage does not cover the basic cost of living?