patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,192,892 comments by 13,872 users - Onvacation, richwicks, The_Deplorable online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 41 - 63 of 63 Search these comments
Dan8267
2013 Apr 19, 5:10am
Either that or it's a suitable reward for Voting Obama.
What was my alternative to Obama? Romney and Ryan. Same problems plus more.
tatupu70
2013 Apr 19, 6:39am
It's just as ridiculous as all the thread on raising the minimum wage
The most pressing problem with the economy is wealth/income disparity. Any changes that help reduce the inequality are good--and raising minimum wage would do exactly that.
All of your arguments assume that when a company has higher profits, they hire more people. I would hope that you agree that is NOT the case. Companies hire when they need to in order to increase production.
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.
Business is good in Mexico and China, demand for goods is higher as is demand for new workers. Demand for non US producers is also higher, due to price differences.
You can keep complaining about the "distribution problem", but you keep ignoring we are competing on a global market place.
tatupu70
2013 Apr 19, 7:45am
You can keep complaining about the "distribution problem", but you keep ignoring we are competing on a global market place.
I'm ignoring it because it's irrelevent. Businesses are making record profits. CEOs earn what--250X an average worker's pay? You're telling me that companies can't pay the average worker more??
It's just as ridiculous as all the thread on raising the minimum wage
All of your arguments assume that when a company has higher profits, they hire more people. I would hope that you agree that is NOT the case. Companies hire when they need to in order to increase production.
His arguements are also predicated on the idea that when costs (which includes wages) rise, they are automatically passed onto the consumer. This concept only works if a given market is completely inelastic, where consumers will pay whatever price is necesarily to obtain the goods and services provided. In most markets there is a price ceiling, where raising prices will cause people to stop buying the product, reduce consumption, or switch to cheaper substitutes. In those markets, which coincidentally are usually the ones that the poor and working class folks consume in, prices can't rise or demand will drop. In short, companies would have to eat the loss taking a bit less profit. That's not good for company stock, but enough profit would remain that the companies could still produce and come out in the black each quarter. In time the increased wages would drive up consumption, particularly at the lower end of the economic spectrum where people spend every penny to survive.
Have no minimum wage. If any Rep/Con/Teas want to work for me,the hourly pay is $1.00/hr. If they don't like that,they can apply at my competitor. He's paying $0.75/hr.
drudometkin
2013 Apr 20, 1:39pm
I agree with you. Raising the minimum wage only makes it harder for those just starting out. It takes the bottom rung of the economic ladder and raises it up so most can't reach it. People aren't worth paying 8/hr when they don't know anything. I had to work for free for a long time to learn my trade(internship) because that's all I was worth when I was just a starting out. Minimum wage should ideally be abolished, but I would accept just lowering it.
JodyChunder
2013 Apr 20, 4:47pm
had to work for free for a long time to learn my trade(internship) because that's all I was worth when I was just a starting out.
Bullshit, good buddy. Your time is the single-most valuable resource you posses, in as much as you can posses such a thing. Anyone who shows up to do some work on time, ready to put in an honest days work should be remunerated on some basic level for their time and dependability. I say this as business owner with employees that I have to train and hone into serious professionals. I don't want anyone showing up at my yoghurt shop or dent repair biz who is willing to work for free. What kinda psychos would I get showing up for interviews?
tatupu70
2013 Apr 20, 11:57pm
It takes the bottom rung of the economic ladder and raises it up so most can't reach it.
What does that even mean? Out of reach? If a company needs to hire someone, they will.
And they will always hire the best candidate. Not sure how raising the pay will make anything out of reach.
Sorry folks, but the minimum wage is more of a hindrance than a benefit. The fact is minimum wage wouldn't be needed if we stopped the constant destruction of the dollar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_dollar (Look at the Buying Power of one dollar and the Exchange rate charts).
Back in the mid and early 20th century many basic jobs was capable of providing a basic standard of living, hell it was even possible for one parent to provide needs for the an entire family of 8. But back then if you read the chart the value of one dollar was easily more than 10-30 times the value of one dollar today. And even then the value of the dollar was being destroyed but its value just wasn't as low as it is today.
Now the problem with minimum wage is it essentially another form of taxation on companies. They are obligated to pay a employee minimum wage when they feel that the employee should be pay for something less. Why? because the job maybe something simple and easy and it maybe something that a new kid from school who still live with mom and dad or relatives can get into and eventually work his way up. But the problem is minimum wage eliminates this, in fact it eliminates job apprenticeships. You know starting out as a bottom feeder with low pay learning the ropes and working your way up?
My father worked for a company starting in the early 70's and managed to work there for over 30 years. When he began he started at the bottom of the barrel but eventually moved into a top management level job and although the company is still around the company went from well about 200-300 workers down to about 50ish. All because workers salaries and insurance are now the company's biggest expense and there's been layoff after layoff (and outsourcing) and less hiring due to laws such as payroll tax increases, minimum wage increases, insurance pay increases, and dollar destruction. And yes all of these lead to lower demand as more people become unemployed or underemployed.
But due to the way the system is setup now in a way minimum wage is needed, thanks to the high taxes and destruction of our currency. But if the government were to stop being involved in our economy and actually regulated the things that needed to be regulated such as fractional reserves lending, derivatives, monetary policies, and etc. And let the market and people determine prices and wages we'd all be better off than we are now.
In fact one of the best economies in the world is Singapore. Although a small country with only 5.3 million people it's unemployment rate is below 2%. It is also a country who expresses true capitalism (more so than the USA) and does not have minimum wage laws or unemployment benefits. And what's funny is Singapore as a very low rate of poverty, much lower than this country's. http://www.theodora.com/wfbcurrent/singapore/singapore_economy.html http://americanlivewire.com/top-10-economies-in-the-world-2013/
One of the arguments for having a minimum wage is to force employers to use automation. Sure, automation leads to job losses. When the private sector can't provide full employment, countries with sovereign currencies can use fiscal policy to provide full employment.
Automation is good for humanity; but current policies are bad!
Now the problem with minimum wage is it essentially another form of taxation on companies. They are obligated to pay a employee minimum wage when they feel that the employee should be pay for something less. Why? because the job maybe something simple and easy and it maybe something that a new kid from school who still live with mom and dad or relatives can get into and eventually work his way up. But the problem is minimum wage eliminates this, in fact it eliminates job apprenticeships. You know starting out as a bottom feeder with low pay learning the ropes and working your way up?
And what happens to the kids out of high school that don't have mommy's and daddy's who can help them out? Who feeds them after they work 50 hours a week for $3.50 an hour because there's no minimum wage? Who keeps a roof over their heads that doesn't involve 12 strangers to a room and a bucket to poop in? How do they pay the taxes they have to pay after you libertarians manage to 'widen the tax base' to catch them? We live in a globalized world where there are 7 billion human souls, most of them still in abject poverty. When it was difficult to get labor, as it was in the early and mid 20th century, standards of living might have been stablized on a Fed-less dollar, but today there is an oversuppy of labor, so all you would do in destroying the minimum wage would be to impoverish more people. The minimum wage doesn't exist for the free market. It exists as humanitarian aide for the person willing to put in full time work. If employers can't afford to pay it, then they don't need the help, do they?
Who feeds them after they work 50 hours a week for $3.50 an hour because there's no minimum wage? Who keeps a roof over their heads that doesn't involve 12 strangers to a room and a bucket to poop in? How do they pay the taxes they have to pay after you libertarians manage to 'widen the tax base' to catch them? We live in a globalized world where there are 7 billion human souls, most of them still in abject poverty.
food is cheap and clothing can be cheaper as does housing...
and here is the real dilemma .. you really do have a problem if you cant adjust to deflation.
Yes in a global market place like auto and heavy industry were you have inflation in material and labor, it has been easy to increase prices to compensate for costs..
we in technology centered economy have only seen deflation... as price of goods and services fall, margins to continue in the market place shrink and vanish.
that is why we have sold our mfg to overseas interest, shifted R&D outside of CA and exited certain markets. As was the case of IBM selling its PC and how hi end enterprise servers to the Chinese.
and all the while its workforce wrongly believes Silicon Valley homes should be priced at $1-2 Million and everyone is paid some insane salary plus stock...
totally irrational thinking has taken over.
Have no minimum wage. If any Rep/Con/Teas want to work for me,the hourly pay is $1.00/hr. If they don't like that,they can apply at my competitor. He's paying $0.75/hr.
Or go to your competitor who is paying $1.25 an hour. I'd rather have someone who you trained at $1.00/hr to serve my customers and do the job than have to try to train another high school dropout (who can't believe that I actually expect him to show up 5 days a week). It works both ways.
tatupu70
2013 Apr 21, 9:27pm
we in technology centered economy have only seen deflation... as price of
goods and services fall, margins to continue in the market place shrink and
vanish.
Thomas--margins are under attack in every industry, all the time, save perhaps a few near monopolies. Technology companies are no different. Prices fall in tech because of engineering advancements and economies of scale--not vanishing margins. The same laws of supply and demand apply elsewhere just like in tech.
drudometkin
2013 Apr 21, 9:54pm
had to work for free for a long time to learn my trade(internship) because that's all I was worth when I was just a starting out.
Bullshit, good buddy. Your time is the single-most valuable resource you posses, in as much as you can posses such a thing. Anyone who shows up to do some work on time, ready to put in an honest days work should be remunerated on some basic level for their time and dependability. I say this as business owner with employees that I have to train and hone into serious professionals. I don't want anyone showing up at my yoghurt shop or dent repair biz who is willing to work for free. What kinda psychos would I get showing up for interviews?
You are a smart business man, why do you need the government to tell you what you need to pay your employees?
You are a smart business man, why do you need the government to tell you what
you need to pay your employees?
Who are we going to sell our products to if we pay our workers Phillipine wages?
Oh I forgot - we all own private jet manufacturers so our customer base will be unaffected by loss of customer income.
tatupu70
2013 Apr 21, 10:22pm
You are a smart business man, why do you need the government to tell you what
you need to pay your employees?
Are you under the impression that the minimum wage was established to "help" businesses figure out what wages they should pay? Let me dispel you of that notion.
zzyzzx
2013 Apr 21, 11:04pm
Who feeds them after they work 50 hours a week for $3.50 an hour because there's no minimum wage?
Won't happen because there is no state that has a minimum wage that low.
Actually, as of Feb 2013, SF unemployment is 7.1% and California's is 9.4%. Not to mention SF's economy is different than most cities. For one it has a huge port system which allows goods to be imported and that helps create various jobs. Also SF attracts a lot of tourism (2nd highest in the U.S.) and it's biggest employer is the government both which help keeps the city's unemployment from tanking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco#Economy
But let's take a look at another city that's like SF, that has a huge port system, attracts a lot of tourist, and around the same size. We'll call it, New Orleans.
New Orleans it has a huge port system yet it's unemployment is at 5.9% (lower than SF), however, the state of Louisiana doesn't have any minimum wage laws.
http://www.bls.gov/web/metro/laulrgma.htm
Also California has higher minimum wage laws than most other states, but it also has the 4th highest levels of unemployment. In fact out of the top 10 states with the highest levels of unemployment, 6 of them have minimum wage laws that are higher than the federal minimum wage.
http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm
drudometkin
2013 Apr 21, 11:46pm
had to work for free for a long time to learn my trade(internship) because that's all I was worth when I was just a starting out.
Bullshit, good buddy. Your time is the single-most valuable resource you posses, in as much as you can posses such a thing. Anyone who shows up to do some work on time, ready to put in an honest days work should be remunerated on some basic level for their time and dependability. I say this as business owner with employees that I have to train and hone into serious professionals. I don't want anyone showing up at my yoghurt shop or dent repair biz who is willing to work for free. What kinda psychos would I get showing up for interviews?
Why do you need to government telling you whats the minimum you can pay? You are a smart business man, and can figure out what works for you and your business.
Nah, none of the companies we own, or work for, or invest our 401k in, sell anything to someone making minimum wage.
« First « Previous Comments 41 - 63 of 63 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