Don't have the skills? This fucking idiot thinks you should have a whole lot of experience before you work your way UP to what is now considered minimum wage? That a person never in the work force is only worth $2.50 an hour? Tell me shithead, how much training does it require to be able to do neat little rows while cutting grass? Sounds to me that guy'd be worth $7.25 an hour at least after the first five minutes. I wish people like you would just shut the fuck up and go crawl back under a rock
@twochordcool Your swearing is not needed; debate based on facts, not emotion. Using your lawn mowing job, if I want to pay only $1.00 no one would do it. If I paid $50, many people would line up to compete for the business and someone might say "I'll do it for $30 instead of $50". The problem is, any adult is able to put clothes on a shelf so competition is tight for that job. If 1 person quits, another takes the job at that wage.
@corecomps What YOU fail to realize is that by paying a person too little, a) that person cannot survive on that, and b) you are hurting the economy because that person does not have enough money to contribute to the economy to keep it thriving. Paying people less fucks up everything. Austerity begets only more austerity.
@corecomps Competition is tight for any job nowadays, so the answer is NOT to lower wages down to some worthless meaningless amount so that the job get's filled and done. It does NOBODY any good in the end.
@twochordcool it is amazing that you believe suddenly everyone making $15/hr would eliminate poverty. Prices would rise as the cost of producing basic goods would increase dramatically. If I am paid $10/hr and can make 5 units per labor, each unit costs $2 in labor. If I'm suddenly paid $100/hr, each unit now costs $20 to make.
Why is that so hard to understand? If people like the low prices of walmart, they also support the low wages of their employees. Simple stop shopping there...
@corecomps Prices MIGHT rise a little but it would not rise to exactly match the cost of labor - and the difference could be made up by the fact that people are buying more things. Your theory is flawed. The REASON our economy is in a slump now is due to high unemployment and lack of demand. There isn't enough demand for things and employment levels reflect that. Put more money in people's pockets and they spend it. It creates demand and businesses hire when there is demand.
If more people made more money there would be more purchases and business transactions and that would offset the cost imposed on a business to pay people more.
@twochordcool if everyone suddenly got more money, then everything would suddenly cost more. Why could you buy bread for a $.05 100 years ago and today it costs $2? Because labor and materials cost more today. It's called inflation.
By your logic, we could suddenly print a billion dollars for every person in the US and suddenly everyone is rich. The reality of the situation is that costs would sky rocket to match the new "poor" which in this case is just a higher number of bills than before
The economy thrives on trade, therefore if wages are extremely low, consumers have very little money to spend...and companies have to charge way less in order to make sales. Eventually the minimum wage argument is pointless. The problem is that some companies pay more, and make it possible for some to keep the price of their products high while cheating their workers out of wage earnings.
"Door Opener?" Okay. The problem with this example is that most people who end up making shit wages do extraordinarily hard work. They acquire technical skills, they use customer service skills, or they do hard labor. Most have great work ethic. They stand all day, they smile, they compassionately listen to your complaints. There is no way to objectively decide what an employee is worth. Without minimum wage, an employer can just decide that the work their employee does isn't worth ends meet.
I don't want to sound like a left-wing idiot, but quite honestly, the only thing that will happen by getting rid of minimum wage laws, is slavery, because the poor will get paid worst wages than in third world countries. Now don't get me wrong, I don't advocate a really high minimum wage, but just one that isn't so low that you'll starve to death and end up in a welfare line, ultimately screwing up the economy even more, but also not one where people dont have incentives to get better job skills
We need tariffs and drive the 3rd world cheap plastic shit so high that it is best to employee real americnas and drive our economy into the golden age. The trade policy now is set up so the rich can use 3rd world slave labor to drive wages here at home down via starvation. It is pure evil, and only evil kosher people benefit.
I think it is foolish to assume that people are willing to work for companies that pay very low wages. If I worked for you I would learn your business and as soon as possible start my own operation; put you out of business, where you belong. I would probably hire many of the underpaid people in your organization, and if you came to me for a job, I'd put you on the door for $3 per hour, and might let you sleep in the vestibule.
As long as both parties agree to it, it is justified. I have a right to choose who I work for. I might not even get paid. Even an unpaid internship is better than nothing. I will gain skills and experience which can be used in future job applications to enhance my chances of getting hired for a higher wage. What is foolish is to assume that wage floors set by governments will make things better. They create labor surpluses -- or what you would call unemployment.
@LogicalFlawDetector That's probably a crock of shit. If Walmart alone paid people double what they do, the Waltons may have a few billion dollars less, but a few hundred thousand people spending more money in the economy would IMPROVE the economy and more or less make up for the employers cost increase. More people spending more money creates demand - and more jobs.
@twochordcool if you think redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor will suddenly boost the economy and add jobs, you fail to understand even the basics of supply and demand.
@corecomps No, that would be you asshole. Because the rich have so much money hoarded and not being used in the economy that it is actually causing economic problems. Tax the rich, put people back to work repairing our infrastructure - it will create demand - people will hire people to make more money and the economy improves - do the opposite - do what you think is right - and it's a continual downward trajectory.
@twochordcool How exactly do the rich "hoard" money? Remember, the working rich created those businesses and jobs by investing their money into building those big companies...Walmart was once a small business. But lets assume they only spend mony on "stupid purchases" (and some of them are really stupid). It still funds the economy exactly the same.
Why is money in a poor person's hand suddenly more valuable that money in a rich person's hand?
@corecomps BECAUSE shithead working class people spend all of their money and contribute positively to the economy and the rich DO NOT. The rich have vast wealth that does not positively contribute to the US economy. We are WAY overdue for a Teddy Roosevelt / Franklin Roosevelt moment in the US for capping the wealth of the very rich and defining a minimum for all Americans. That would have the added benefit of repairing our economy and getting federal and state government budgets out of the red
@twochordcool Unfortunately, you are just irate and spouting irrational claims and fowl laungage with 0% factual data so this isn't very fun.
Lets do what you want and steal their CEO's earnings of $35 million last year and give it back to their employees. They employ 1.6 million people. That equates to exactly $21.88 per year per employee.
Compare their CEO's profit to their sales. $421billion vs $35million. That is 0.00831%. For every $120.28 you spend at walmart, he gets 1 CENT. EVIL!
@corecomps There are A LOT more people in the top 1% than CEO's, and there is A LOT more money concentrated by those people than you state - so your argument is moronic right out of the gates. We must find a way for MORE people to get paid MORE. And it would be a JUST thing because VERY FEW people get enormously wealthy without people doing the hard work beneath them. Those people should share the profits. WHY should the Waltons make billions while their workers can't survive on current wages?
If Walmart is forced to pay double the current wage, Walmart would employ less people. It's the Law of Demand, stupid. Why don't you, by your retarded logic, raise the minimum wage to fucking $200/hour? Stop sucking Paul Krugman's 3-inch penis and think, faggot.
@LogicalFlawDetector No they wouldn't shithead - they NEED a certain amount of employees to function. Couple that with the fact that more people would have more money to spend at Walmart (higher wages = more to spend) and it would MORE than make up the difference. You moronic conservatives have theories that ALWAYS prove to be completely inaccurate or downright false when put to the test. ALWAYS. I bet you're another idiot that fell for the lower taxes equals higher revenue into the IRS argument
No faggot, the dead weight loss from the minimum wage is a net loss to the economy. It's a net reduction in economic surplus. Under the equilibrium wage, more people would be employed; they would also market clearing wages and spend them in the economy. The higher wages from a minimum wage is obtained at the EXPENSE of now unemployed people. By your logic we should raise the minimum wage to $50/hour--which will destroy the economy.
All of you people who say we should scrap the minimum wage have clearly never had to survive on minimum wage. Min. Wage doesn't prevent an employer from paying a worker MORE, it just protects the worker from getting paid less that a living wage (BTW minimum wage now is barely enough to live on). If employers didn't have to pay minimum wage, they would do the profitable thing, which is to pay as little as possible. Sure we would have more people employed, but they would be living in poverty.
@FishscaleRaw I started working under the minimum wage because i got a job from a business that didn't not financially meet the standards for having to pay. Minimum wage either causes prices to go up, quality to go down or reduced work force. In some cases all will happen. Minimum wage is just political gain. Someone living off minimum wage is not living very well.
Most countries have minimum wage laws, but, just for kicks, let me list some of the countries without national minimum wage laws or allow unions. Hmmm...Iran, Iraq, Namibia, Singapore, Ethiopia...that's about all I can think of right now. I think you guys should consider moving, these places are perfect for you!
@CarlosMarti123 "minimum wage laws or allow unions" I wouldn't know, I believe all of these countries have unions\collective bargaining rights, which I mentioned in my original post.
@CarlosMarti123 "minimum wage laws or allow unions" I wouldn't know, I believe all of these countries have unions\collective bargaining rights, which I mentioned in my original post.
This is typical B.S ,the minumum wage ensures that people who work can make at least enough to live or at least to eat...some ashole that runs a McDonald's knows full well if a somebody can make a lousy hamburger for a corporation that makes billions every year he or she is worth the minumum wage....another B.S video by somebody who would have people work for nothing if he could.
@SongSwan - The price of goods are directly linked to the labor it takes to produce them. If we paid everyone $20/hr minimum, the price of goods produced by those people would go up and what $5 bought you yesterday now buys 1/4th of what it is. I suppose you would rather have people sit at home and starve rather than working for a lower wage which would reduce the costs of goods for everyone making it more affordable to survive?
@corecomps The price of goods is determined by both the labor and profit margin of the company,we have multi billion dollar corporations like McDonalds who make billions off of minumum wage workers.
How many burgers can a guy making 7 dollars and hour make in one hour,if he can make 20 that sell for 5 bucks a peice then for 7 dollars he has made McDonalds 100 dollars,i woukld say McDoanals is getting one hell of a McDeal from it's employees,the guy is more than worth his 7 dollars.
@SongSwan lol you forget that McDonald's owns the land, restaurant, needs to pay electricity, gas, heat etc and food costs, waste, lawyers, and most importantly, have to pay employees to sit there and do nothing during the slow times. The labor is a *major* cost to them. Is it worth $7 / hour when anyone in the entire planet can do it?
@corecomps Anyone can be trained to do anything,there are plentry of jobs that don't require much at all other than jumping through the right hoops and bowing at the feet of the right people...your's is a philosophy of the elite and that only the elite deserve a wage they can actually live on...a nation of paupers and princes with little or nothing in between.....that is where we are headed so i guess you will be happy with it.
If there is no MW then businesses would use their immense bargaining power to establish a "desperation" wage. This would not reflect an employee's true value. It would merely be a function of the extent to which the capitalists can price collude to set wages in a given industry and the propensity for the individual to pursue alternate means of income, predominantly crime. The wage would equate to subsistence living and there would be no possible escape from the poverty cycle.
You fail to understand that in the real world employees of a company would not tolerate being screwed out of decent pay forever. Without government interference there is nothing a company could do but fold to the demands of their employees, or hire an all new group of people who are willing to work for less and therefore would presumably be in greater need, anyway. In this scenario if the employees demand too much then the company would fold and they would all suffer the (cont.)
consequences for their unreasonable demands and general stupidity... i.e. the employees thus become personally responsible in this way for their success or failure. Lastly, there is no use arguing against any of this... you are arguing against reason, nature, balance... The idea that people need to be valued at X is merely guesswork backed by (mostly) good intentions... the end results are terrible... as the saying goes the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
It should also be noted that with minimum wage laws off the table, employees would inevitably be compelled to pay particular attention to what their employers are paying them, and on the flip side employers would be compelled to pay close to attention to their employees and to appease them, lest they end up in the situation I alluded to earlier. All of this balance is a product of a natural and just system... wonky human guesswork will always end in problems.
@regresseur You are right. Without a minimum wage, low skilled employees would be forced to unionize to combat the power imbalance between the individual and the corporation. This kind of militancy would be very costly and damaging to the corporation.
Additionally, we need to recognize that corporations do not encourage and facillitate free markets. The goal of every corporation is to dominate the market and exploit monopoly power. Corporations would seek to exploit free labor markets too.
@TheEvdoggy funny how this has never happened in history.....EVER. Supply and demand have not changed and the laws that govern them are as set as the laws of physics. You can come up with any statistic or what ever you want but, not once in history has the supply and demand laws been broken except by 'do gooders' that THINK they are helping people and MW does nothing but hurt them. Always has, always will.
what would you suggest? no one can live on 5.00 dollars an hour. There needs to be a minimum wage so people can afford freaking food. Im all for no minimum wage if you halt inflation, and reign in these greedy shareholders that are the force behind corporations demanding higher profits. Minimum wage is about fairness. Im not going to bust my ass loading a truck all day in the 90 degree heat for less than 7.00 dollars an hour. Get the hell out of here.
@jbeihl1 That is flawed logic. First, food prices would be reduced because it would cost less to produce them. Second, if you are are unwilling to work for less than $7/hr that is perfectly okay. Either someone else would be willing to work for $5/hr *or* the employee is unable to fill that job. As a result, they would have to raise the rate to the price of which someone is willing to work. This is why Garbage men are paid $15/hr, no one will work for less than that.
@malwambi Yes it is, costs of goods produced would go down and people would be adding value to society rather than suckling off the government teet and your tax dollars.
@AndroidPolitician What flawed statements, unemployment is at 9.6% now and minimum wage is at $7.25. Yet in 1990 unemployment was 5% and the minimum wage was $3.80.
You also fail to mention that in 1960 bread was $.20 vs $2.00 today. Why did prices rise? Maybe because the labor to create food went up?
Your last statement is simply not factual. In the years follow the 18 increases in minimum wage, 9 unemployment went up and 9 went down.
I snicker at your silly attempt at factual debate.
lol those are certainly some correlations you have going on.
I can play this game too: why was unemployment 13% in 1895 when minimum wage didn't even exist yet?
Get it out of your head that unemployment is solely the cause of minimum wage and that inflation is solely the cause of it too. Both those thoughts are stupid.
@AndroidPolitician I never said they were the sole cause 'link' != sole cause)
If it takes someone making $5.50/hr and 1 hour to make it my labor cost is $5.50. If the government artificially comes in and says "you must now pay them $7.00", the employer has limited options to recover that $1.50
Increase the price by $1.50
Have less profit
Automate and eliminate the job
Force more output per hour (eliminate breaks, health benefits, etc).
@AndroidPolitician There is no race to the bottom... only a race to the value that a job is worth.
Employers compete by increasing wages even for the most mundain of jobs that everyone has a skill set to do. McDonalds employees local to me start at $8.75/hr not because of law or charity but because they compete with other employers who could hire them away for more.
Your point is illogical, if their was a race to the bottom, every US worker would curently be making minimum wage.
People are payed less then they were in the 70s so there has been a slight race to the bottom. The reason why doctors, lawyers etc. aren't payed minimum wage is because of organizations like the AMA and Bar Association.
You're logic of "workers would go to the employer that pays the most" ignores how there's a limited scope of pay raise for menial work but a nearly unlimited scope for cutting pay. Plus job insecurity keeps people tethered to their current jobs.
@AndroidPolitician I'm sorry but if you honestly believe doctors are payed more than minimum wage because of organizations lobbying rather than supple and demand, then this debate is done. Until this point, your thought were well intended and common misconceptions that are worthy of a debate.
The pay for any job is exactly equal to supply of workers compared to the demand for that position. In the case there the value is less than minimum wage, the job is eliminated.
lol so by you're brilliant logic of supply and demand why have wages for manufacturing jobs plummeted at the same time manufacturing jobs are almost non-existent in the US?
Why were real wages increasing at the same time minimum wage was and decreased when minimum wage was stagnant for decades?
It's even better when you look at the data. There's about 7 million doctors and 3 million protection jobs (bouncers, guards etc.) but the doctors get payed ridiculously more.
@AndroidPolitician that is funny. didnt know a bouncer had to go to college for 7 years. stats mean what you want them to mean. people like yourself put facts together and the outcome is not always a fact. Statistics singularly are facts but, putting them together doesnt mean the 2+ facts make another. Bouncers, guards dont need a degree to do their job. If you are going to compare things, make it apples to apples and not apples to turbochargers.
That's exactly what I'm saying. The AMA and Bar association mandates degrees to be considered a doctor or lawyer.
That's actually a reason why doctors wear white, in the 1800s most doctors had no degrees and where considered "quacks", so to counter that notion, the AMA and others mandated degrees and made doctors wear white lab coats like scientists.
The guy I was arguing with literally thought it had to do with "labor supply" and how minimum wage distorts labor cost.
@AndroidPolitician gotcha. any clue as to why so many people dont understand why MW is hurting the economy and always has? On the social side, many kids over the last several decades that dont work at a young age tend to get into trouble and do things they should not. MW is making more and more teens unemployed. why do others not get this and it causes inflation.
Yeah no, minimum wage helps increase real wage (which has never gone above 1974) and states with higher real wage also have a lower turn over rate for minimum wage jobs (keep teens working).
removing minimum wage would plummet all wages and increase insecurity.
actually no. doing away with minimum wage would put more people to work. jobs based on skill would correct themselves with the pay increase/decrease. Supply and demand would return the job market to normal as it always has. 'real' wage is not valid. Where MW is lower than the going rate, you have higher inflation, locally. New York, DC, for example. The misconception that you should be able to live off of MW is crap. You call it a real wage, I call it BS.
I don't think you understand what real wage is, it's wage adjusted for inflation. All that aside, there's almost no evidence that real wage "distorts" labor cost especially since more people were employed during decades when the real minimum wage was much higher than today.
I know what real wage is and you confuse it with minimum wage. the wage you 'want' people to make is a wage that pays 'enough' to make a local economy rent, food, and cost of living. this is not what minimum wage is. Inflation has nothing to do with minimum wage. If minimum wage were a real wage, you still could not live off it currently, duh. you last statement has to do with value and not minimum wage again. at no time in history has MW been enough for anyone to live off of.
You do not understand what MW is and how it affects employment and inflation. MW laws force businesses to pay a certain amount. Again, if MW as so good, why not make it 25/hour. Reason, it will cause massive inflation the more you up it. you really need to understand what value vs dollar amount is. you and others like you, dont get this at all.
@AndroidPolitician By increasing minimum wage, you lose jobs, cause anyone making slightly higher than minimum wage poorer, and cause inflation in the cost of goods... the sad part is that most people that make minimum wage are making basic needs like food. Businesses then eventually go over seas or replace expensive labor with automation leaving those workers sitting at home. But I suppose that is better.
You should be paid what the job is worth, no more or no less.
Wages are only a small part of inflation since it can still increase while wages decrease. You seem to think inflation mostly happens because of wages which isn't the cast at all.
Uh no, outsourcing has increased because of deliberate government policies which give tax write offs for putting businesses overseas.
@AndroidPolitician No moron - outsourcing occurs to pay somebody 50 cents an hour instead of paying an American $15 an hour. Your blame government theory is moronic.
Outsourcing didn't happen from the 50s to early 70s because the Bretton Woods System acted as an effective trade barrier, at that time it would of been much more lucrative to outsource then today. Then after Bretton Woods old tax incentives became relevant again.
at any rate I think we hold the same line of thought anyway and views anyway.
@AndroidPolitician You don't hold the same views as me because you try to further the argument that it's government's fault that jobs are flying out of this country - and that's just BS. The primary reason jobs are leaving is cheap labor - and you're a fool if you think we ought to keep jobs here by matching what the Chinese are willing to pay their workforce. All other "excuses" are a distant second.
@corecomps Bull shit - you should be paid a minimum wage at a minimum for showing up at a job and doing what is asked of you - and I believe minimum wage ought to be much higher than it currently is. Let me guess, you also believe that if government lowers taxes they also get increased revenue into the IRS?
Your example only applies to higher inflation areas where paying MW is offset due to it is not worth as much,,,,,IE the dollar is worth less and has less buying power for rent/M payment. Its artificial and you know it. 7.25 is not big deal to be paid by the employer in new york but, in a smaller town, it has more buying power. Why do you and others not get this. Controlling pay is a stupid idea. Thought you were smarter than that.
@Rime247 If everyone in the world decided to not go to McDonalds anymore, there would immediately be 1.5 MILLION people unemployed unable to provide for themselves leading to more people needing help to survive.
lol This is my final comment because you still fail to see basic facts. You are what we call an irrational"bleeding heart"
Pulling money out of the economy to "give" is the same as feeding a man for a day rather than teaching a man to fish. Create a job and a man can feed himself.
@Rime247 Private organizations like churches, the united way, and others are powerful entities many poor together can do grand things. I feel sorry for you that you have so little humanity in yourself that you fail to see the power of humanity in others.
To you humanity is a government fat cat stealing $20k/year from a family, cutting it 20 times lost in the bureaucracy and giving $1000 to family next door. I believe cutting out the middle man and helping directly.
@Rime247 your bullet points are opinions not fact. I ask that you examine the city of Detroit Michigan as an example of a city filled with government handouts.
If a family member, neighbor, or friend was starving at your door step, would you turn them away without government intervention? Of course not and neither would I.
Why on earth do you trust a multi-million air gov elect to do it better and with more care and feeling than you or I? Why do you have so little faith in humanity?
If my extended family or friends were in trouble, I would pool money to help them or let them stay with me. THAT my friend is where the help should come from. That help can be more direct, abused less, cost less, etc.
The benefits don't get them jobs, it gets them by until they get a job. It teaches irresponsibility, never saving for a rainy day, and worse of all teaches us not to help our neighbors since big government will be there for them.
@corecomps BTW, I have personally helped family and friends who were unemployed and homeless as well as received personal financial help when I was younger. All of this being private help. Not only did I eventually pay them back but during that time I worked my ass off for them helping wiring their house, building a computer at cost... things I could do with my labor.
A government system removes this personal liability and responsibility, taken the human out of it.
or they can make up for the difference by cutting into their billions in profits. your way is good to though. i mean, we can do without a middle class.
wow, how unique and new. it's not as though the ideas of milton friedman have been tested for the last thirty years and have resulted in a lower standard of living and a complete economic collapse. there is clearly no history we can refer to in order to test these ideas.
@Rime247 Your alternative to "slave labor" (that is your definition of a labor rate under minimum wage) is to make it illegal for someone to work for less than a certain wage which is *guaranteeing* they will never be employed. There are many jobs for unskilled people paying far higher than minimum wage but because it's easier for someone to sit at home and collect a check than to be a hard working janitor (11.74/hour), they decide to stay at home.
@Rime247 Third... your suggestion is to take taxes from the rich in order to have someone go to school and learn a trade but you simply do not understand supply and demand. If there was suddenly 1 million new trained nurses on the market, they would suddenly be worth less and would get paid less. Higher paying jobs are so paid because few people have the mindset or capability to do that job. If everyone has a college degree it makes no difference, we still need mcdonald employees and janitors
@Rime247 you have so many flaws in your argument is hard to know where to start. First you talk about them being a slave in a free market but under today's system they are a slave to the government. They are actually incentives to remain unemployed at the risk of losing their government assistance.
Second, Janitors and Garbage man make > $7.25 and that doesn't require "learn-able" skill. Why? Supply and demand as few people want to clean up puke or smell garbage all day. They get $20/hr+
@Rime247 - Your view is that a certain section of the population will always suckle off the government tit and people with labor worth > $7.25/hour will be hired?
While I don't support it, if the government subsidized the difference between an "unfair wage" and "livable wage" at least people are gaining experience, reduce reliance on tax dollars and helping the economy.
Instead you prefer they sit at home on my tax money never bothering to work if they are not worth $7.25/hour?
@Rime247 - Irrational thought. What is the alternative? Stay unemployed and suckling at the government tit? At least a low paying job while they waited or gained experience for a higher paying one would allow them to gain experience and trust and aid the economy.
Even if the government gave them the difference between their wage and a "livable" one. They would suck a little less from tax pool.
Your alternative of having them do nothing on my dollar vs a lower wage makes no sense.
Don't have the skills? This fucking idiot thinks you should have a whole lot of experience before you work your way UP to what is now considered minimum wage? That a person never in the work force is only worth $2.50 an hour? Tell me shithead, how much training does it require to be able to do neat little rows while cutting grass? Sounds to me that guy'd be worth $7.25 an hour at least after the first five minutes. I wish people like you would just shut the fuck up and go crawl back under a rock
twochordcool 2 months ago
@twochordcool Your swearing is not needed; debate based on facts, not emotion. Using your lawn mowing job, if I want to pay only $1.00 no one would do it. If I paid $50, many people would line up to compete for the business and someone might say "I'll do it for $30 instead of $50". The problem is, any adult is able to put clothes on a shelf so competition is tight for that job. If 1 person quits, another takes the job at that wage.
corecomps 2 months ago
@corecomps What YOU fail to realize is that by paying a person too little, a) that person cannot survive on that, and b) you are hurting the economy because that person does not have enough money to contribute to the economy to keep it thriving. Paying people less fucks up everything. Austerity begets only more austerity.
twochordcool 2 months ago
@corecomps Competition is tight for any job nowadays, so the answer is NOT to lower wages down to some worthless meaningless amount so that the job get's filled and done. It does NOBODY any good in the end.
twochordcool 2 months ago
Funny how libertarian fucking idiots try to justify slave labor.
twochordcool 2 months ago
@twochordcool it is amazing that you believe suddenly everyone making $15/hr would eliminate poverty. Prices would rise as the cost of producing basic goods would increase dramatically. If I am paid $10/hr and can make 5 units per labor, each unit costs $2 in labor. If I'm suddenly paid $100/hr, each unit now costs $20 to make.
Why is that so hard to understand? If people like the low prices of walmart, they also support the low wages of their employees. Simple stop shopping there...
corecomps 2 months ago
@corecomps Prices MIGHT rise a little but it would not rise to exactly match the cost of labor - and the difference could be made up by the fact that people are buying more things. Your theory is flawed. The REASON our economy is in a slump now is due to high unemployment and lack of demand. There isn't enough demand for things and employment levels reflect that. Put more money in people's pockets and they spend it. It creates demand and businesses hire when there is demand.
twochordcool 2 months ago
Paul Krugman > Milton Friedman
Paul Krugman would call for the exact opposite of what you are espousing and he'd be dead right.
twochordcool 2 months ago
If more people made more money there would be more purchases and business transactions and that would offset the cost imposed on a business to pay people more.
twochordcool 2 months ago
@twochordcool if everyone suddenly got more money, then everything would suddenly cost more. Why could you buy bread for a $.05 100 years ago and today it costs $2? Because labor and materials cost more today. It's called inflation.
By your logic, we could suddenly print a billion dollars for every person in the US and suddenly everyone is rich. The reality of the situation is that costs would sky rocket to match the new "poor" which in this case is just a higher number of bills than before
corecomps 2 months ago
The economy thrives on trade, therefore if wages are extremely low, consumers have very little money to spend...and companies have to charge way less in order to make sales. Eventually the minimum wage argument is pointless. The problem is that some companies pay more, and make it possible for some to keep the price of their products high while cheating their workers out of wage earnings.
Conetchopsuey 3 months ago
"Door Opener?" Okay. The problem with this example is that most people who end up making shit wages do extraordinarily hard work. They acquire technical skills, they use customer service skills, or they do hard labor. Most have great work ethic. They stand all day, they smile, they compassionately listen to your complaints. There is no way to objectively decide what an employee is worth. Without minimum wage, an employer can just decide that the work their employee does isn't worth ends meet.
dewofpee 7 months ago
I don't want to sound like a left-wing idiot, but quite honestly, the only thing that will happen by getting rid of minimum wage laws, is slavery, because the poor will get paid worst wages than in third world countries. Now don't get me wrong, I don't advocate a really high minimum wage, but just one that isn't so low that you'll starve to death and end up in a welfare line, ultimately screwing up the economy even more, but also not one where people dont have incentives to get better job skills
eleal1893 8 months ago
We need tariffs and drive the 3rd world cheap plastic shit so high that it is best to employee real americnas and drive our economy into the golden age. The trade policy now is set up so the rich can use 3rd world slave labor to drive wages here at home down via starvation. It is pure evil, and only evil kosher people benefit.
MrAppleseed88 9 months ago
this guy is a fucking moron.
SUPERSTUD6000 9 months ago
I think it is foolish to assume that people are willing to work for companies that pay very low wages. If I worked for you I would learn your business and as soon as possible start my own operation; put you out of business, where you belong. I would probably hire many of the underpaid people in your organization, and if you came to me for a job, I'd put you on the door for $3 per hour, and might let you sleep in the vestibule.
Conetchopsuey 10 months ago
As long as both parties agree to it, it is justified. I have a right to choose who I work for. I might not even get paid. Even an unpaid internship is better than nothing. I will gain skills and experience which can be used in future job applications to enhance my chances of getting hired for a higher wage. What is foolish is to assume that wage floors set by governments will make things better. They create labor surpluses -- or what you would call unemployment.
LogicalFlawDetector 9 months ago
@LogicalFlawDetector That's probably a crock of shit. If Walmart alone paid people double what they do, the Waltons may have a few billion dollars less, but a few hundred thousand people spending more money in the economy would IMPROVE the economy and more or less make up for the employers cost increase. More people spending more money creates demand - and more jobs.
twochordcool 2 months ago
@twochordcool if you think redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor will suddenly boost the economy and add jobs, you fail to understand even the basics of supply and demand.
corecomps 2 months ago
@corecomps No, that would be you asshole. Because the rich have so much money hoarded and not being used in the economy that it is actually causing economic problems. Tax the rich, put people back to work repairing our infrastructure - it will create demand - people will hire people to make more money and the economy improves - do the opposite - do what you think is right - and it's a continual downward trajectory.
twochordcool 2 months ago
@twochordcool How exactly do the rich "hoard" money? Remember, the working rich created those businesses and jobs by investing their money into building those big companies...Walmart was once a small business. But lets assume they only spend mony on "stupid purchases" (and some of them are really stupid). It still funds the economy exactly the same.
Why is money in a poor person's hand suddenly more valuable that money in a rich person's hand?
corecomps 2 months ago
@corecomps BECAUSE shithead working class people spend all of their money and contribute positively to the economy and the rich DO NOT. The rich have vast wealth that does not positively contribute to the US economy. We are WAY overdue for a Teddy Roosevelt / Franklin Roosevelt moment in the US for capping the wealth of the very rich and defining a minimum for all Americans. That would have the added benefit of repairing our economy and getting federal and state government budgets out of the red
twochordcool 2 months ago
@twochordcool Unfortunately, you are just irate and spouting irrational claims and fowl laungage with 0% factual data so this isn't very fun.
Lets do what you want and steal their CEO's earnings of $35 million last year and give it back to their employees. They employ 1.6 million people. That equates to exactly $21.88 per year per employee.
Compare their CEO's profit to their sales. $421billion vs $35million. That is 0.00831%. For every $120.28 you spend at walmart, he gets 1 CENT. EVIL!
corecomps 2 months ago
@corecomps There are A LOT more people in the top 1% than CEO's, and there is A LOT more money concentrated by those people than you state - so your argument is moronic right out of the gates. We must find a way for MORE people to get paid MORE. And it would be a JUST thing because VERY FEW people get enormously wealthy without people doing the hard work beneath them. Those people should share the profits. WHY should the Waltons make billions while their workers can't survive on current wages?
twochordcool 2 months ago
@twochordcool
If Walmart is forced to pay double the current wage, Walmart would employ less people. It's the Law of Demand, stupid. Why don't you, by your retarded logic, raise the minimum wage to fucking $200/hour? Stop sucking Paul Krugman's 3-inch penis and think, faggot.
LogicalFlawDetector 2 months ago
@LogicalFlawDetector No they wouldn't shithead - they NEED a certain amount of employees to function. Couple that with the fact that more people would have more money to spend at Walmart (higher wages = more to spend) and it would MORE than make up the difference. You moronic conservatives have theories that ALWAYS prove to be completely inaccurate or downright false when put to the test. ALWAYS. I bet you're another idiot that fell for the lower taxes equals higher revenue into the IRS argument
twochordcool 2 months ago
@twochordcool
No faggot, the dead weight loss from the minimum wage is a net loss to the economy. It's a net reduction in economic surplus. Under the equilibrium wage, more people would be employed; they would also market clearing wages and spend them in the economy. The higher wages from a minimum wage is obtained at the EXPENSE of now unemployed people. By your logic we should raise the minimum wage to $50/hour--which will destroy the economy.
LogicalFlawDetector 2 months ago
All of you people who say we should scrap the minimum wage have clearly never had to survive on minimum wage. Min. Wage doesn't prevent an employer from paying a worker MORE, it just protects the worker from getting paid less that a living wage (BTW minimum wage now is barely enough to live on). If employers didn't have to pay minimum wage, they would do the profitable thing, which is to pay as little as possible. Sure we would have more people employed, but they would be living in poverty.
FishscaleRaw 10 months ago
@FishscaleRaw I started working under the minimum wage because i got a job from a business that didn't not financially meet the standards for having to pay. Minimum wage either causes prices to go up, quality to go down or reduced work force. In some cases all will happen. Minimum wage is just political gain. Someone living off minimum wage is not living very well.
DrunkenGodMode 3 months ago
@FishscaleRaw And if more people thought like them there would be few people with enough money to buy the bull shit they're selling.
twochordcool 2 months ago
Most countries have minimum wage laws, but, just for kicks, let me list some of the countries without national minimum wage laws or allow unions. Hmmm...Iran, Iraq, Namibia, Singapore, Ethiopia...that's about all I can think of right now. I think you guys should consider moving, these places are perfect for you!
wuezili 10 months ago
@wuezili That's because those countries are already in poverty, DOLT.
Nothing to do with minimum wage, take some courses in economics, will ya?
CarlosMarti123 10 months ago
Comment removed
CarlosMarti123 10 months ago
@wuezili How does it feel to make a fool of yourself?
CarlosMarti123 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CarlosMarti123 "minimum wage laws or allow unions" I wouldn't know, I believe all of these countries have unions\collective bargaining rights, which I mentioned in my original post.
wuezili 10 months ago
@wuezili Some countries for you: Austria, Denmark, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland...
How does it feel to make a fool of yourself?
CarlosMarti123 10 months ago
@CarlosMarti123 "minimum wage laws or allow unions" I wouldn't know, I believe all of these countries have unions\collective bargaining rights, which I mentioned in my original post.
wuezili 10 months ago
This is typical B.S ,the minumum wage ensures that people who work can make at least enough to live or at least to eat...some ashole that runs a McDonald's knows full well if a somebody can make a lousy hamburger for a corporation that makes billions every year he or she is worth the minumum wage....another B.S video by somebody who would have people work for nothing if he could.
SongSwan 1 year ago
@SongSwan - The price of goods are directly linked to the labor it takes to produce them. If we paid everyone $20/hr minimum, the price of goods produced by those people would go up and what $5 bought you yesterday now buys 1/4th of what it is. I suppose you would rather have people sit at home and starve rather than working for a lower wage which would reduce the costs of goods for everyone making it more affordable to survive?
corecomps 1 year ago
@corecomps The price of goods is determined by both the labor and profit margin of the company,we have multi billion dollar corporations like McDonalds who make billions off of minumum wage workers.
How many burgers can a guy making 7 dollars and hour make in one hour,if he can make 20 that sell for 5 bucks a peice then for 7 dollars he has made McDonalds 100 dollars,i woukld say McDoanals is getting one hell of a McDeal from it's employees,the guy is more than worth his 7 dollars.
SongSwan 1 year ago
@SongSwan lol you forget that McDonald's owns the land, restaurant, needs to pay electricity, gas, heat etc and food costs, waste, lawyers, and most importantly, have to pay employees to sit there and do nothing during the slow times. The labor is a *major* cost to them. Is it worth $7 / hour when anyone in the entire planet can do it?
corecomps 1 year ago
@corecomps Anyone can be trained to do anything,there are plentry of jobs that don't require much at all other than jumping through the right hoops and bowing at the feet of the right people...your's is a philosophy of the elite and that only the elite deserve a wage they can actually live on...a nation of paupers and princes with little or nothing in between.....that is where we are headed so i guess you will be happy with it.
SongSwan 1 year ago
@SongSwan AGREE
toddcherry37 11 months ago
@SongSwan RIGHT ON BRO! AGREE
toddcherry37 11 months ago
If there is no MW then businesses would use their immense bargaining power to establish a "desperation" wage. This would not reflect an employee's true value. It would merely be a function of the extent to which the capitalists can price collude to set wages in a given industry and the propensity for the individual to pursue alternate means of income, predominantly crime. The wage would equate to subsistence living and there would be no possible escape from the poverty cycle.
TheEvdoggy 1 year ago
@TheEvdoggy
1.
You fail to understand that in the real world employees of a company would not tolerate being screwed out of decent pay forever. Without government interference there is nothing a company could do but fold to the demands of their employees, or hire an all new group of people who are willing to work for less and therefore would presumably be in greater need, anyway. In this scenario if the employees demand too much then the company would fold and they would all suffer the (cont.)
regresseur 1 year ago
@TheEvdoggy
2.
consequences for their unreasonable demands and general stupidity... i.e. the employees thus become personally responsible in this way for their success or failure. Lastly, there is no use arguing against any of this... you are arguing against reason, nature, balance... The idea that people need to be valued at X is merely guesswork backed by (mostly) good intentions... the end results are terrible... as the saying goes the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
regresseur 1 year ago
@TheEvdoggy
3.
It should also be noted that with minimum wage laws off the table, employees would inevitably be compelled to pay particular attention to what their employers are paying them, and on the flip side employers would be compelled to pay close to attention to their employees and to appease them, lest they end up in the situation I alluded to earlier. All of this balance is a product of a natural and just system... wonky human guesswork will always end in problems.
regresseur 1 year ago
@regresseur You are right. Without a minimum wage, low skilled employees would be forced to unionize to combat the power imbalance between the individual and the corporation. This kind of militancy would be very costly and damaging to the corporation.
Additionally, we need to recognize that corporations do not encourage and facillitate free markets. The goal of every corporation is to dominate the market and exploit monopoly power. Corporations would seek to exploit free labor markets too.
TheEvdoggy 1 year ago
@TheEvdoggy funny how this has never happened in history.....EVER. Supply and demand have not changed and the laws that govern them are as set as the laws of physics. You can come up with any statistic or what ever you want but, not once in history has the supply and demand laws been broken except by 'do gooders' that THINK they are helping people and MW does nothing but hurt them. Always has, always will.
cliffkemp 1 year ago
what would you suggest? no one can live on 5.00 dollars an hour. There needs to be a minimum wage so people can afford freaking food. Im all for no minimum wage if you halt inflation, and reign in these greedy shareholders that are the force behind corporations demanding higher profits. Minimum wage is about fairness. Im not going to bust my ass loading a truck all day in the 90 degree heat for less than 7.00 dollars an hour. Get the hell out of here.
jbeihl1 1 year ago
@jbeihl1 That is flawed logic. First, food prices would be reduced because it would cost less to produce them. Second, if you are are unwilling to work for less than $7/hr that is perfectly okay. Either someone else would be willing to work for $5/hr *or* the employee is unable to fill that job. As a result, they would have to raise the rate to the price of which someone is willing to work. This is why Garbage men are paid $15/hr, no one will work for less than that.
It's just logic.
corecomps 1 year ago
Is it really better to work for $3 an hour than to be unemployed?
malwambi 1 year ago
@malwambi Yes it is, costs of goods produced would go down and people would be adding value to society rather than suckling off the government teet and your tax dollars.
corecomps 1 year ago
Unemployment fell after minimum wage was put in place.....
Real Wages rose after minimum was put in place......
Areas with higher minimum wage have higher teen employment.........
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician What flawed statements, unemployment is at 9.6% now and minimum wage is at $7.25. Yet in 1990 unemployment was 5% and the minimum wage was $3.80.
You also fail to mention that in 1960 bread was $.20 vs $2.00 today. Why did prices rise? Maybe because the labor to create food went up?
Your last statement is simply not factual. In the years follow the 18 increases in minimum wage, 9 unemployment went up and 9 went down.
I snicker at your silly attempt at factual debate.
corecomps 1 year ago
@corecomps
lol those are certainly some correlations you have going on.
I can play this game too: why was unemployment 13% in 1895 when minimum wage didn't even exist yet?
Get it out of your head that unemployment is solely the cause of minimum wage and that inflation is solely the cause of it too. Both those thoughts are stupid.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician I never said they were the sole cause 'link' != sole cause)
If it takes someone making $5.50/hr and 1 hour to make it my labor cost is $5.50. If the government artificially comes in and says "you must now pay them $7.00", the employer has limited options to recover that $1.50
Increase the price by $1.50
Have less profit
Automate and eliminate the job
Force more output per hour (eliminate breaks, health benefits, etc).
If you have other options, I'd love to hear them.
corecomps 1 year ago
@corecomps
So why don't we just work for $0.50 or even free?
The problem you're ignoring is a race to the bottom, every workplace would be competing to pay employees less until the pay goes below bills.
Plus the real wage is the same as it was in the 70s, at a time when minimum wage wasn't increased for like 20 years.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician There is no race to the bottom... only a race to the value that a job is worth.
Employers compete by increasing wages even for the most mundain of jobs that everyone has a skill set to do. McDonalds employees local to me start at $8.75/hr not because of law or charity but because they compete with other employers who could hire them away for more.
Your point is illogical, if their was a race to the bottom, every US worker would curently be making minimum wage.
Sorry.
corecomps 1 year ago
@corecomps
People are payed less then they were in the 70s so there has been a slight race to the bottom. The reason why doctors, lawyers etc. aren't payed minimum wage is because of organizations like the AMA and Bar Association.
You're logic of "workers would go to the employer that pays the most" ignores how there's a limited scope of pay raise for menial work but a nearly unlimited scope for cutting pay. Plus job insecurity keeps people tethered to their current jobs.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician I'm sorry but if you honestly believe doctors are payed more than minimum wage because of organizations lobbying rather than supple and demand, then this debate is done. Until this point, your thought were well intended and common misconceptions that are worthy of a debate.
The pay for any job is exactly equal to supply of workers compared to the demand for that position. In the case there the value is less than minimum wage, the job is eliminated.
Thanks for the debate.
corecomps 1 year ago
@corecomps
lol so by you're brilliant logic of supply and demand why have wages for manufacturing jobs plummeted at the same time manufacturing jobs are almost non-existent in the US?
Why were real wages increasing at the same time minimum wage was and decreased when minimum wage was stagnant for decades?
It's even better when you look at the data. There's about 7 million doctors and 3 million protection jobs (bouncers, guards etc.) but the doctors get payed ridiculously more.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician that is funny. didnt know a bouncer had to go to college for 7 years. stats mean what you want them to mean. people like yourself put facts together and the outcome is not always a fact. Statistics singularly are facts but, putting them together doesnt mean the 2+ facts make another. Bouncers, guards dont need a degree to do their job. If you are going to compare things, make it apples to apples and not apples to turbochargers.
cliffkemp 1 year ago
@cliffkemp
That's exactly what I'm saying. The AMA and Bar association mandates degrees to be considered a doctor or lawyer.
That's actually a reason why doctors wear white, in the 1800s most doctors had no degrees and where considered "quacks", so to counter that notion, the AMA and others mandated degrees and made doctors wear white lab coats like scientists.
The guy I was arguing with literally thought it had to do with "labor supply" and how minimum wage distorts labor cost.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician gotcha. any clue as to why so many people dont understand why MW is hurting the economy and always has? On the social side, many kids over the last several decades that dont work at a young age tend to get into trouble and do things they should not. MW is making more and more teens unemployed. why do others not get this and it causes inflation.
cliffkemp 1 year ago
@cliffkemp
Yeah no, minimum wage helps increase real wage (which has never gone above 1974) and states with higher real wage also have a lower turn over rate for minimum wage jobs (keep teens working).
removing minimum wage would plummet all wages and increase insecurity.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
actually no. doing away with minimum wage would put more people to work. jobs based on skill would correct themselves with the pay increase/decrease. Supply and demand would return the job market to normal as it always has. 'real' wage is not valid. Where MW is lower than the going rate, you have higher inflation, locally. New York, DC, for example. The misconception that you should be able to live off of MW is crap. You call it a real wage, I call it BS.
cliffkemp 1 year ago
@cliffkemp
I don't think you understand what real wage is, it's wage adjusted for inflation. All that aside, there's almost no evidence that real wage "distorts" labor cost especially since more people were employed during decades when the real minimum wage was much higher than today.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
I know what real wage is and you confuse it with minimum wage. the wage you 'want' people to make is a wage that pays 'enough' to make a local economy rent, food, and cost of living. this is not what minimum wage is. Inflation has nothing to do with minimum wage. If minimum wage were a real wage, you still could not live off it currently, duh. you last statement has to do with value and not minimum wage again. at no time in history has MW been enough for anyone to live off of.
cliffkemp 1 year ago
You do not understand what MW is and how it affects employment and inflation. MW laws force businesses to pay a certain amount. Again, if MW as so good, why not make it 25/hour. Reason, it will cause massive inflation the more you up it. you really need to understand what value vs dollar amount is. you and others like you, dont get this at all.
cliffkemp 1 year ago
@cliffkemp
The same reason we don't make it $5000/hour, it would be too much in one time and the economy would freak out.
If you gradually increase it though, it has the effect of increasing real wages and the overall purchasing power of American workers.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician By increasing minimum wage, you lose jobs, cause anyone making slightly higher than minimum wage poorer, and cause inflation in the cost of goods... the sad part is that most people that make minimum wage are making basic needs like food. Businesses then eventually go over seas or replace expensive labor with automation leaving those workers sitting at home. But I suppose that is better.
You should be paid what the job is worth, no more or no less.
corecomps 1 year ago
@corecomps
Wages are only a small part of inflation since it can still increase while wages decrease. You seem to think inflation mostly happens because of wages which isn't the cast at all.
Uh no, outsourcing has increased because of deliberate government policies which give tax write offs for putting businesses overseas.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician you sure seem confident it is not the $1.06 / hr labor....
corecomps 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@corecomps
I'm not sure if that was a typo or whether you mean the equilibrium wage is $1.06 which is incorrect in either case.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician No moron - outsourcing occurs to pay somebody 50 cents an hour instead of paying an American $15 an hour. Your blame government theory is moronic.
twochordcool 2 months ago
@twochordcool
Well it's more varied.
Outsourcing didn't happen from the 50s to early 70s because the Bretton Woods System acted as an effective trade barrier, at that time it would of been much more lucrative to outsource then today. Then after Bretton Woods old tax incentives became relevant again.
at any rate I think we hold the same line of thought anyway and views anyway.
AndroidPolitician 2 months ago
@AndroidPolitician You don't hold the same views as me because you try to further the argument that it's government's fault that jobs are flying out of this country - and that's just BS. The primary reason jobs are leaving is cheap labor - and you're a fool if you think we ought to keep jobs here by matching what the Chinese are willing to pay their workforce. All other "excuses" are a distant second.
twochordcool 2 months ago
@twochordcool
It's part of the reason anyway, mostly it's government inaction.
AndroidPolitician 2 months ago
@corecomps Bull shit - you should be paid a minimum wage at a minimum for showing up at a job and doing what is asked of you - and I believe minimum wage ought to be much higher than it currently is. Let me guess, you also believe that if government lowers taxes they also get increased revenue into the IRS?
twochordcool 2 months ago
Your example only applies to higher inflation areas where paying MW is offset due to it is not worth as much,,,,,IE the dollar is worth less and has less buying power for rent/M payment. Its artificial and you know it. 7.25 is not big deal to be paid by the employer in new york but, in a smaller town, it has more buying power. Why do you and others not get this. Controlling pay is a stupid idea. Thought you were smarter than that.
cliffkemp 1 year ago
@Rime247 If everyone in the world decided to not go to McDonalds anymore, there would immediately be 1.5 MILLION people unemployed unable to provide for themselves leading to more people needing help to survive.
lol This is my final comment because you still fail to see basic facts. You are what we call an irrational"bleeding heart"
Pulling money out of the economy to "give" is the same as feeding a man for a day rather than teaching a man to fish. Create a job and a man can feed himself.
theagnosticrev 1 year ago
@Rime247 Private organizations like churches, the united way, and others are powerful entities many poor together can do grand things. I feel sorry for you that you have so little humanity in yourself that you fail to see the power of humanity in others.
To you humanity is a government fat cat stealing $20k/year from a family, cutting it 20 times lost in the bureaucracy and giving $1000 to family next door. I believe cutting out the middle man and helping directly.
THAT IS HUMANITY.
theagnosticrev 1 year ago
@Rime247 your bullet points are opinions not fact. I ask that you examine the city of Detroit Michigan as an example of a city filled with government handouts.
If a family member, neighbor, or friend was starving at your door step, would you turn them away without government intervention? Of course not and neither would I.
Why on earth do you trust a multi-million air gov elect to do it better and with more care and feeling than you or I? Why do you have so little faith in humanity?
theagnosticrev 1 year ago
@Rime247
If my extended family or friends were in trouble, I would pool money to help them or let them stay with me. THAT my friend is where the help should come from. That help can be more direct, abused less, cost less, etc.
The benefits don't get them jobs, it gets them by until they get a job. It teaches irresponsibility, never saving for a rainy day, and worse of all teaches us not to help our neighbors since big government will be there for them.
corecomps 1 year ago
@corecomps BTW, I have personally helped family and friends who were unemployed and homeless as well as received personal financial help when I was younger. All of this being private help. Not only did I eventually pay them back but during that time I worked my ass off for them helping wiring their house, building a computer at cost... things I could do with my labor.
A government system removes this personal liability and responsibility, taken the human out of it.
corecomps 1 year ago
or they can make up for the difference by cutting into their billions in profits. your way is good to though. i mean, we can do without a middle class.
pihingler 1 year ago
more theory, less history, please.
pihingler 1 year ago
wow, how unique and new. it's not as though the ideas of milton friedman have been tested for the last thirty years and have resulted in a lower standard of living and a complete economic collapse. there is clearly no history we can refer to in order to test these ideas.
pihingler 1 year ago
@Rime247 Your alternative to "slave labor" (that is your definition of a labor rate under minimum wage) is to make it illegal for someone to work for less than a certain wage which is *guaranteeing* they will never be employed. There are many jobs for unskilled people paying far higher than minimum wage but because it's easier for someone to sit at home and collect a check than to be a hard working janitor (11.74/hour), they decide to stay at home.
Come back to the table with facts.
corecomps 1 year ago
@Rime247 Third... your suggestion is to take taxes from the rich in order to have someone go to school and learn a trade but you simply do not understand supply and demand. If there was suddenly 1 million new trained nurses on the market, they would suddenly be worth less and would get paid less. Higher paying jobs are so paid because few people have the mindset or capability to do that job. If everyone has a college degree it makes no difference, we still need mcdonald employees and janitors
theagnosticrev 1 year ago
@Rime247 you have so many flaws in your argument is hard to know where to start. First you talk about them being a slave in a free market but under today's system they are a slave to the government. They are actually incentives to remain unemployed at the risk of losing their government assistance.
Second, Janitors and Garbage man make > $7.25 and that doesn't require "learn-able" skill. Why? Supply and demand as few people want to clean up puke or smell garbage all day. They get $20/hr+
theagnosticrev 1 year ago
@Rime247 - Your view is that a certain section of the population will always suckle off the government tit and people with labor worth > $7.25/hour will be hired?
While I don't support it, if the government subsidized the difference between an "unfair wage" and "livable wage" at least people are gaining experience, reduce reliance on tax dollars and helping the economy.
Instead you prefer they sit at home on my tax money never bothering to work if they are not worth $7.25/hour?
theagnosticrev 1 year ago
@Rime247 - Irrational thought. What is the alternative? Stay unemployed and suckling at the government tit? At least a low paying job while they waited or gained experience for a higher paying one would allow them to gain experience and trust and aid the economy.
Even if the government gave them the difference between their wage and a "livable" one. They would suck a little less from tax pool.
Your alternative of having them do nothing on my dollar vs a lower wage makes no sense.
theagnosticrev 1 year ago