patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,250,312 comments by 14,912 users - gabbar, stereotomy online now
invite responseComments 1 - 40 of 63 Next » Last » Search these comments
Paying people less will lead to more demand.....Oh it will lead to lower prices and those prices will be offered to the consumer, who is making less money, and they will buy more stuff.......fuck ya that is brilliant.
Dan8267
2013 Apr 18, 1:39am
Let's just bring back slavery. If we allow corporations to buy individuals by paying off their debts, then we could bring back a lot of jobs to America. The problem is that the lazy worker class doesn't want to work for just what it takes to keep them alive until 50. Plus, working slaves to death would eliminate the problems of Social Security.
Plus think about how much it would stimulate the economy, especially if we allow corporations to deduct capital depreciation as their slaves age.
Bring back slavery, and I'm sure we can turn America into a GOP utopia!
zzyzzx
2013 Apr 18, 1:48am
I am in favor of eliminating the federal minimum wage since almost every state already has it's own. The federal minimum wage is essentially useless.
Oh this is a states rights issue? so what states would "benefit" from having no federal minimum wage?
Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee....
Ahhh the dumb republican belt (the south)
Fuck it repeal it wages down there will go to some extreme low level and you will have more people choosing welfare over a job that they can not survive on. Dumbasses
I wouldn't be surprised if this was somehow influenced by some sort of vested related interest or lobby. Suggesting we shouldn't have a minimum wage is bullshit. I worked in restaurants, big box stores, and other type jobs for almost a decade. The work is hard, the wages are low, and the benefits are seldom very good either.
I am in favor of eliminating the federal minimum wage since almost every state already has it's own. The federal minimum wage is essentially useless.
Oh this is a states rights issue? so what states would "benefit" from having no federal minimum wage?
It's much harder to repeal a federal law than a state law. If you get rid of federal minimum wage, it's only a matter of time till enough campaign contributions by big box realtors and other payers of minimum wage start lobbying the states. No, we need the federal minimum wage as a form of safetynet. Otherwise, people become indentured servants, worked hard for barely subsistance existance.
zzyzzx
2013 Apr 18, 3:40am
it's only a matter of time till enough campaign contributions by big box realtors and other payers of minimum wage start lobbying the states
And how much is that going to cost to do 50 times over??? I don't see that happening.
And how much is that going to cost to do 50 times over??? I don't see that
happening.
Really having a one time cost 50 times over, followed by getting to pay lower wages forever. Yeah that would never happen.
I wonder why ideas like this are already being circulated through conservative media outlets?
Tenpoundbass
2013 Apr 18, 3:49am
Let's just stop trying to pretend Burger flippers are in the same class of people as Automobile assemblers.
I mean the whole point of low wage jobs, is to educate the people that thought they were too cool for school. A few months/years of low wage jobs, would be enough to send people back to school or on a quest to seek a more lucrative career.
The BIG BIG BIG problem right now under Obama, is Obama don't give a fuck about those alternatives. Getting Ben to run on the treadmill that powers up the National printing press, and giving that money to McDonlds to build more stores they don't need, and hire more people they don't need.
Even Obama knows that, so this is how he fixes that mess. Make them pay burger flippers more. It's a win win.
Fuck ME!
zzyzzx
2013 Apr 18, 3:49am
Really having a one time cost 50 times over, followed by getting to pay lower wages forever. Yeah that would never happen.
Wouldn't be forever, and wouldn't happen in the first place.
Let's just stop trying to pretend Burger flippers are in the same class of people as Automobile assemblers.
I mean the whole point of low wage jobs, is to educate the people that thought they were too cool for school. A few months/years of low wage jobs, would be enough to send people back to school or on a quest to seek a more lucrative career.
The BIG BIG BIG problem right now under Obama, is Obama don't give a fuck about those alternatives. Getting Ben to run on the treadmill that powers up the National printing press, and giving that money to McDonlds to build more stores they don't need, and hire more people they don't need.
Even Obama knows that, so this is how he fixes that mess. Make them pay burger flippers more. It's a win win.
Fuck ME!
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/03/30/number-of-the-week-college-grads-in-minimum-wage-jobs/
Whats next, the parents who own small businesses should force their children to work for free since they are providing free rent and food equivalent?
Let's just stop trying to pretend Burger flippers are in the same class of people as Automobile assemblers.
I mean the whole point of low wage jobs, is to educate the people that thought they were too cool for school. A few months/years of low wage jobs, would be enough to send people back to school or on a quest to seek a more lucrative career.
No, the whole point of low wage jobs is to do the labor those jobs entail. Working a register or a fry cooker isn't a form of social punishement for being lazy in school. It's about creating french fries and delivering them to customers across a counter after receiving payment for them. Some people will never be more than fry cooks and cashiers. That doesn't mean they should live in abject poverty their entire lives. Minimum wage is supposed to allow a decent standard of living for full time work. If someone puts in 50 or 60 hours a week at a job (or collectively at multiple jobs), they should at least be able to eat 3 meals a day, heat their homes in the winter, and go to the doctor when they're sick. Government has to hold the line on certain things for the good of society and one of those things is the minimum wage. Otherwise, there is no floor that can't be pulled out from under workers to squeeze more profit and productivity out of them.
zzyzzx
2013 Apr 18, 11:22pm
Whats next, the parents who own small businesses should force their children to work for free since they are providing free rent and food equivalent?
Aren't they doing that already anyway?
zzyzzx
2013 Apr 18, 11:48pm
That's because you don't really understand the economic situation that we're in now. Businesses only hire when there is demand for more products. They DON'T hire just because they are making profits. We have a distribution problem in the US--if we could get the money to the workers, then demand would increase and then hiring would also increase.
Lowering the minimum wage would only make things worse--companies would make more money, but they would have to lay more people off as demand decreased.
You don't understand that higher prices reduces demand, which in turn reduces employment. Many studies prove this.
You don't understand that higher prices reduces demand, which in turn reduces
employment. Many studies prove this.
You don't understand that prices are determined by the market. Costs only affect prices insofar as they can affect market supply. Prices are sticky and the first thing to go is profit margin.
zzyzzx
2013 Apr 19, 12:28am
I also find it outrageous that we keep useless laws on the books. Federal minimum wage laws are useless since almost every state has one as well. I'm thinking there are a lot of others that fall into the same category.
I find it outrageous that anyone would suggest that minimum wage jobs should
provide enough for a family of 4 living in their own place.
Adam Smith
Wealth of Nations
Considered the founder of Capitalism
"A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more; otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation."
The founder of capitalism says that ones labor must make enough wages to raise a family. zzyzzx thinks that is outrageous. I wonder who is correct?
That's because you don't really understand the economic situation that we're in now. Businesses only hire when there is demand for more products. They DON'T hire just because they are making profits.
Demand for more products? We have already all the non-essential shit we could want. We need LESS demand for non-essential shit, which is 99% of what companies sell. Instead we need fair prices for the very few things you really need which have been inflated by the Keynesian money-printers stuck in overdrive.
zzyzzx
2013 Apr 19, 12:55am
The founder of capitalism says that ones labor must make enough wages to raise a family. zzyzzx thinks that is outrageous. I wonder who is correct?
IMO, It should be enough to support just yourself in a group house.
I find it outrageous that anyone would suggest that minimum wage jobs should
provide enough for a family of 4 living in their own place.
Adam Smith
Wealth of Nations
Considered the founder of Capitalism
"A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more; otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation."
That's fine as long as there is an equilibrium but not if it's a Ponzi scheme where the population on earth is constantly growing and the aging depend on yet more offspring to support them. Also, the second sentence is an ideal scenario, notice "upon most occasions" ;) Also this is likely easier supportable if you live and function in big family structures like they used to exist when Smith stated this. Nowadays every kid needs their own bedroom, to suggest otherwise will get you into an instant argument. We used to share bedrooms and go to the library for internet and research, not stream 5 fucking different channels of uverse/comcast mindless TV shows simultaneously from bedroom to kitchen and call that the right to education.
Whats next, the parents who own small businesses should force their children to work for free since they are providing free rent and food equivalent?
Aren't they doing that already anyway?
They sure are, the sole proprietors are the greatest exploitiers of all, many of them should never be backed in conflict against government or corporations.
The founder of capitalism says that ones labor must make enough wages to raise a family. zzyzzx thinks that is outrageous. I wonder who is correct?
IMO, It should be enough to support just yourself in a group house.
What's a "group house?" That sounds like those condemned dorm style tenements in china for "workers"....
5 fucking different channels of uverse/comcast mindless TV shows simultaneously
from bedroom to kitchen and call that the right to education.
Why such negativity? DVR and ability to record multiple shows on receiver at the same time is arguably on the most amazing achievement of this century. They have truly liberated the populace. No longer does work interfere with the things people like to watch. God bless america!
What's a "group house?" That sounds like those condemned dorm style tenements in china for "workers"....
Shared housing, or live with the family. When I moved to SF first I lived in a - likely illegal - room in the attic with a tiny window where I could only stand in the middle together with 5 other people in the house. Not the best chick magnet but you can make up for it with some good endowment ;) I think by that time some of my friends with the same starting salary in SW/HW engineering were already shopping around .for houses, partying like it's 99. For the first month I slept in my car and then for a month in a roachy "motel" amongst some otherwise homeless until I found that place.
5 fucking different channels of uverse/comcast mindless TV shows simultaneously
from bedroom to kitchen and call that the right to education.
Why such negativity? DVR and ability to record multiple shows on receiver at the same time is arguably on the most amazing achievement of this century. They have truly liberated the populace. No longer does work interfere with the things people like to watch. God bless america!
Can't argue with that ;)
zzyzzx
2013 Apr 19, 2:44am
Why such negativity? DVR and ability to record multiple shows on receiver at the same time is arguably on the most amazing achievement of this century.
I' pretty sure that no OTA DVR can record multiple channels at the same time. If so, please post the brand and model number for me.
zzyzzx
2013 Apr 19, 2:45am
What's a "group house?" That sounds like those condemned dorm style tenements in china for "workers"....
It's when someone buys a house that's too big for themselves and they rent out the other bedrooms rooms to other people (often their friends).
tatupu70
2013 Apr 19, 3:09am
Demand for more products? We have already all the non-essential shit we could want. We need LESS demand for non-essential shit, which is 99% of what companies sell. Instead we need fair prices for the very few things you really need which have been inflated by the Keynesian money-printers stuck in overdrive.
lol--what do you consider essential? Is indoor plumbing "essential"? How about cars? Or air conditioning?
We should live like cavemen?
The whole point of increasing productivity is to improve quality of life.
That entire post is ridiculous.
zzyzzx
2013 Apr 19, 3:51am
That entire post is ridiculous.
It's just as ridiculous as all the thread on raising the minimum wage
Tenpoundbass
2013 Apr 19, 4:13am
Working a register or a fry cooker isn't a form of social punishement for being lazy in school.
Sure it is, but it's also a gauge on a failed Presidency when those are the bulk of the Jobs.
You name it, I've done it. It was a social beatdown every minute I worked those jobs.
Working a register or a fry cooker isn't a form of social punishement for being lazy in school.
Sure it is, but it's also a gauge on a failed Presidency when those are the bulk of the Jobs.
You name it, I've done it. It was a social beatdown every minute I worked those jobs.
So they are expected to do a job with a smile on their face and service the customer as that same customer "punishes" them for lack of performance in school?
Working a register or a fry cooker isn't a form of social punishement for being lazy in school.
Sure it is, but it's also a gauge on a failed Presidency when those are the bulk of the Jobs.
You name it, I've done it. It was a social beatdown every minute I worked those jobs.
I'm sorry you had such a difficult life. However, I assure you that the owners of those fast food joints would disagree with you. They need people to cook the food and sell it at the register. From their perspective the purpose of a cashier or fry cook is to do the work they need done. No employer is going to hire someone and pay them ANY wage merely to punish them for not working hard in school.
Why such negativity? DVR and ability to record multiple shows on receiver at the same time is arguably on the most amazing achievement of this century.
I' pretty sure that no OTA DVR can record multiple channels at the same time. If so, please post the brand and model number for me.
Directv has 2 receivers - HR21-100 and HR24-200 that can record 2 shows at the same time assuming that you are not watching TV at that same time. Since it has 2 tuners if you are watching TV live it occupies 1 tuner and you would only be able to record 1 other show as you are watching another channel. However, they have even newer models that can record up to 5 shows at the same time.
Working a register or a fry cooker isn't a form of social punishement for being lazy in school.
Sure it is, but it's also a gauge on a failed Presidency when those are the bulk of the Jobs.
You name it, I've done it. It was a social beatdown every minute I worked those jobs.
I'm sorry you had such a difficult life. However, I assure you that the owners of those fast food joints would disagree with you. They need people to cook the food and sell it at the register. From their perspective the purpose of a cashier or fry cook is to do the work they need done. No employer is going to hire someone and pay them ANY wage merely to punish them for not working hard in school.
Right, owners only care about making money in capitalist society. This is not some collectivist paradise where people are taught lessons via deliberate punishment. If there's any "punishment" it is purely incidental as in perhaps lack of studying limited future opportunity which hence limited marketable skills which may in turn limit job opportunities.
Tenpoundbass
2013 Apr 19, 4:29am
So they are expected to do a job with a smile on their face and service the customer as that same customer "punishes" them for lack of performance in school?
Yup...
Either that or it's a suitable reward for Voting Obama.
Take your pick, or take two they are small and petty.
Comments 1 - 40 of 63 Next » Last » Search these comments
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/lower-minimum-wage-opinion-100000586.html
NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- A minimum wage does more harm than good, and yet, we continue to hear from well-intended people that we should raise the minimum wage.
The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 was to increase the minimum wage of American Samoa's workers 50 cents per year until the minimum wage was equal to the rest of United States.
As a result, some American Samoa's workers received an increase in 2009; however, shortly after, workers were laid off and unemployment increased to around 20%.
After realizing the impact of the minimum-wage increase, Obama then signed a wage increase delay until 2015. That also happens to be after Obama leaves office.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office reviewed the results of raising the minimum wage and found employment decreased as a result. For anyone who understands economics, this should not come as a surprise.
The impact on American Samoa workers may not match the thesis of raising the minimum wage effectively, but it does fit in reality well. Sadly, reality doesn't curb the desire for proponents to provide all sorts half-cocked reasons to push forward.
Proponents usually offer two main reasons why the working poor will be better off if the government decides for them what they should receive for wages.
The first reason is that you can't raise a family on minimum wage. After adding in all the government programs available, I'm not sure that argument holds water, but let's assume it's true for a moment.
Nader's argument assumes that everyone including an entry-level position at McDonald's and Wal-Mart should be able to earn enough to raise a family right from the start. Never mind a lack of skills or work history, in his mind if you're punched in on the clock, you should be able to start a family. The price consequences for consumers should be obvious.
The second argument is that wages should be set at an arbitrary "dignified" level. Again, this type of argument skirts around logic and tries to create an emotional reaction. From a government point of view, there should be nothing dignified or undignified about any wage amount. Someone is worth whatever someone else is willing to pay. Proponents forget that having a job, learning new skills, and self-improving are more dignified than the unemployment line.
What proponents actually need is Santa to be real. The only problem is that Santa isn't true, and there is no such thing as a free lunch. I think if we can work around the lack of Santa and free lunches, the minimum wage plan may have merits.
As long as we live in a world that doesn't include free lunches, the reality of a minimum wage is zero benefit for those earning it, and a negative benefit for everyone else. This isn't a zero sum game, and the amount of wealth available isn't static, it's dynamic. The history of central planning destroying wealth never seems to both those that advocate for it. They continue to focus on positive indications of success.
Nader points to a poll about Chicago and the raising of the minimum wage there. According to the study, a dollar increase in the minimum wage results in $2,800 of additional consumer spending. What Nader fails to point out is higher prices as a consequence for the increase in the minimum wage. Santa doesn't bring the extra $2,800 per year; consumers have to pay above market rates for the items they buy to make it happen.
Remember, this isn't a zero sum game, and higher costs will result in reduced demand. Lower demand is another way to say less employment. Job losses cause the gross domestic product (GDP) to decrease. In other words, a smaller pie to divide up.
If you want a higher standard of living for everyone, and I think we all do, a better option is to create a business-friendly environment that increases, not decreases, the demand for labor. A true increase in demand will increase the free market's rate for unskilled labor and create greater opportunity for the working poor.
Lastly, have you noticed the Naders of the world don't use sport icons as their comparison? It's harder to create an emotional response from people that may like the athlete. Logically, it makes for a better argument, but the last thing proponents for central planning want is for reason to enter into the debate.
#politics