Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9179 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,227 Year: 5,484/9,624 Month: 509/323 Week: 6/143 Day: 6/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Wealth Distribution in the USA
Modulous
Member (Idle past 99 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(5)
Message 58 of 531 (699500)
05-20-2013 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Coyote
05-19-2013 11:00 PM


Re: Tax and Force are not synonymous
Do you think paupers make anyone better off?
Yes, obviously.
Are socialists trying to expropriate money from paupers?
There are some taxes that the poor pay.
How many paupers start businesses and hire people?
Many successful people claim to have done exactly this.
Paupers are a drain on society, not an asset.
So we should enact policies that minimise the number of paupers by ensuring a certain distribution of wealth.
Those with money can create jobs and spread money around.
But they only get rich and richer by taking more money than they spread. Indeed, as the economy grows, the richest seem to be the only ones who benefit from this growth - even though the poorer people worked hard for it too.
While rich people create jobs, it's clear that they only do so when they will profit from doing so. That is: if there is a job position that would net $40,000 a year for the company, then a rich person would 'create' a job that pays $20,000 / year (or whatever) and they take the $20k for themselves.
The poor spread their money around by giving it to the rich.
A company of 20,000 staff has $1 billion profits for the year. This means they could pay all of their staff, the people that did the hard work $50,000 bonuses. But instead, as is practically mandated by law they 'expand/grow the business', only to 'cut back' when profits aren't as good later, which generally means people losing jobs.
Those who work for their money and create wealth are an asset, not a class to be demonized.
I wouldn't demonize such people.
But people who are earning huge amounts of money, and using that money to influence politics so that the rules can allow them to earn even more money...at the expense of the poor, the 'doing ok' and the reasonably affluent. People who have tried to keep the hard workers whose actual physical work generates the wealth, as far away from the profits as they legally can. Those that create growth in the economy, and hog most of the proceeds (an increasing proportion according to the video in OP), and then when the economy shrinks manipulate affairs so that the poor and affluent take the fall. The people who earn more a year than many people can expect in their life, and complain at 15% tax rates...
Those people? Yeah, they should be demonized.
Socialists have been trying to expropriate every loose dime that they can, but what happens when they run out of people to loot?
Socialism doesn't function by people robbing a finite number of others sequentially.
Socialists should realize that they need a lot more wealthy people to support their nefarious schemes, not fewer.
It's not the existence of people with wealth that is the problem. It is the problem of hogging growth and dodging the consequences of risk at others expense.
When everyone is reduced to pauperism who will the socialists have left to loot?
There is no reason to put everyone into pauperism. I pay socialist health insurance every month. It sits around 100-200 a month. I am not a pauper as a result. The government has made sure that I can comfortably afford that amount of cost without worrying too much about it. And if I fall ill there's no deductible or premium rise or getting kicked from my insurer. I don't have to worry about any bills coming in unless I deliberately opt for private treatment (which I occasionally do).
I am not a pauper because of this, I am much wealthier as a result. My private life insurance went up when I fell ill, but fortunately my national insurance rates stayed the same.
The degree of taxes required to drive someone earning $5,000,000 / year into being a pauper would be phenomenal. A rate that nobody, I'm sure, is proposing.
But still they and their sycophants continue to decry those who have earned their money by hard and honest work.
I'm sure the first million or so was earned through hard and maybe even honest work. But after that, the work starts to get easier. You can in fact pay other people manage your investments and do very little in the way of work at all.
I'm not sure how much capital I would need to near effortlessly pay myself a liveable wage in perpetuity - but I'm pretty sure its an amount many of the wealthiest people have surpassed.
I'm sure many of them continue to work hard, but they don't generally need to work 70 hours a week in sometimes physically difficult jobs, just to meet the basics requirements of survival as many of the 'paupers' do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Coyote, posted 05-19-2013 11:00 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by AZPaul3, posted 05-20-2013 11:46 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 99 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 98 of 531 (699558)
05-21-2013 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Percy
05-21-2013 4:03 PM


Is this person a slave?
Yes, more or less.
If we leave it to the market, it will come down to supply and demand. And there is more demand for work than there is work. So wages will be driven down as those who are willing to work for next to nothing 'outbid' the others.
And workers have little leverage to change this state of affairs. The only thing they can really do, outside of legislation, is collectively withhold their labour. This decreases the supply of workers, and hopefully persuades the market to up wages accordingly.
But this is disruptive to society and those that engage in it are often reviled and legislated against.
So in practical terms, the market is too cruel a force to be the only factor in determining wages.
To justify the first sentence of this post imagine where the market forces forced wages down to the point where a person could only barely afford the cost of living (on a shoestring). What is the practical difference between someone in such a position and a slave? Some theoretical degree of freedom? It's not much. Slaves work in return for habitation/clothing/food etc, and those in poverty are basically doing the same thing. It might not be the malevolent and racist slavery made infamous by the Americans; it might be more akin to the slavery that was practiced in other times at other places.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Percy, posted 05-21-2013 4:03 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Percy, posted 05-21-2013 6:47 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 162 by Taq, posted 05-22-2013 4:38 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 99 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 116 of 531 (699581)
05-21-2013 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Percy
05-21-2013 6:47 PM


Is this person a slave?
Yes, more or less.
Really?
My final paragraphs explain my comment in more detail.
What was he doing before the employer built a factory in his country?
He was likely working elsewhere for a while, and maybe spent some time unemployed. Who knows, he's hypothetical.
Did the employer build the factory only by destroying the job he used to have?
No, but businesses do sometimes expand into a marketplace and in the process, cause other businesses to lose market share and thus have to scale back and lose employees. Sometimes there is net growth, sometimes not. Unemployment rates have moved around, but its not a steady decline alongside rising GDP.
None of which really speaks to the nature of the concept of wage slavery

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Percy, posted 05-21-2013 6:47 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Percy, posted 05-21-2013 9:07 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 99 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 122 of 531 (699593)
05-21-2013 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Percy
05-21-2013 9:07 PM


Your final paragraphs rebut an argument I wasn't making.
It wasn't a rebuttal, just an explanation for my saying 'yes, more or less'.
If he has sufficient reality for someone to base an argument on him receiving $2-3 an hour, then he has sufficient reality for me to point out that if one removes the employer then he's worse off.
But whose talking about removing the employer?
It doesn't take any great sense of compassion to judge that it isn't fair when wages are too little, and I'm with everybody on this.
The fact that you can see that leaving it to the market can (and indeed does) lead to unfair consequences should answer your question of
quote:
Why shouldn't wages be set by the market?
But it is a leap of not only illogic and irrationality but even worse of really, really bad math to believe that fairness demands that a job's worth be at least equal to a person's needs.
It's not about demanding a job be worth anything. It's about acknowledging that the power to set wages primarily lies in the hands of the employer and that without intervention, employers, in order to maximise their profits, will pay the minimum they possibly can. This minimum will essentially be the least amount anyone would be willing to do that job for, and as such that can, and does, lead to impoverished workers who end up trying to outbid each other on lower and lower wages.
It's not considered desirable, to some, to have an impoverished working class. Some think that if the working class had some spending power that would be better economically and would mean a better quality of life for more people which is a moral victory too.
We invented the notion of self-regulating markets because supply/demand mechanics sound so neat and tidy. It's all rather swell, and I confess to understanding only some of it. But nevertheless, I think it would be foolish to enslave ourselves to the 'will' of an inhuman mechanic.
We might define the value of a job in an auction sense as being the least amount of money anybody who can perform the job will perform the job. That is, let market forces set a value. But I think human labour should have a minimum price on the market. I think you agree that $0/hour + living expenses is below minimum (eg., slavery, indentured servitude); I see no reason the government can't then make a calculation about living expenses and say that wages for a full working week must pay at least necessary living expenses. We don't want the working class to be worse off than slaves, right? Yes, yes, they get to pick who their masters are - but there were forms of consensual slavery historically too.
But that doesn't change the fact that markets (which are always strongly influenced by regulatory environments) set values. Compassion doesn't demand that we forget our math skills.
And markets do indeed influence wages. Which is why CEOs of large corporations can command such lucrative salaries, while the cleaners do not. Because there may well be a surplus of people willing to clean for money, the market would almost certainly set the wage at below the minimum required for comfortable living. This is evident in the number overseas departments global companies use solely due to the fact that they can pay lower wages.
As such, although we allow the market to set wages for the middling jobs and above, for the lowest paid jobs there should be government regulations to prevent rampant labour exploitation at the expense of the citizens. We, quite rightly, set a minimum wage below which it would be both unfair and illegal to pay someone for a day's work.
And that's why, in short, we don't let the markets decide. The market is amoral and blind of social consequences. Thus we add regulations to avoid the market running too far in undesirable directions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Percy, posted 05-21-2013 9:07 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Percy, posted 05-21-2013 10:58 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 99 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 137 of 531 (699621)
05-22-2013 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Percy
05-21-2013 10:58 PM


Independent of social legislation and labor unions and any other factors affecting compensation
Why would we consider things independently of labour unions? Why consider only one side of the bargaining process when determining wages?
This is why as much as some people might like to think that market forces can't be allowed to set wages, market forces are what set wages.
As I said, market forces do set wages. But there are good reasons to not allow market forces be the sole determining force, and to legislate for a minimum price for human labour as I have previously described.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Percy, posted 05-21-2013 10:58 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Percy, posted 05-22-2013 12:21 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 99 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 142 of 531 (699627)
05-22-2013 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Percy
05-22-2013 12:21 PM


I guess you'd have to ask someone who was actually arguing for this point of view.
I'm asking you why would we consider wages independent unions as that is what you called upon me to do.
The key point is that the effects of minimum wage laws and union labor contracts and so forth don't have any effect on the value contributed to a company by any particular job. If a job's wage rises above the perceived value contributed to the company then the job will fall under pressure to either change or disappear.
Well, when minimum wage rises, the spending power of the poor workers rises, as does the cost of services and products. So unless a business is somehow compelled to not increase their prices to reflect their larger overheads, they shouldn't need to discard jobs as a result.
Not a point I was making, but yes, I agree
The question you asked is why don't we just let the market decide wages. I'm happy to see that we have some agreement over why we don't.
Here in the US, applying the same minimum wage in both Missoula and San Jose is obviously crazy, but that's what we do, and over the years they've had the side effect of gradually pricing younger teens out of the job market. And in the pre-teen age group jobs are gone. Newspaper delivery boys are a thing of the past.
I couldn't really comment on that situation.
Here in the UK a minimum wage and standard working week gets you about 12,000/year. You'd pay 1,100 in income tax and NI. You might be paying about 6-7,000 in rent, 3-4,000 on food, and oh, that's it. You're done spending for the year. Good look with your utilities. Thus the tax payers, not the businesses that profit from the workers labour, have to make up the difference in housing benefits and the like.
I'm pretty sure we're glad that the market isn't allowed to make that situation any worse, even if it isn't compelled to currently make it any better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Percy, posted 05-22-2013 12:21 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by NoNukes, posted 05-22-2013 1:15 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 150 by Percy, posted 05-22-2013 2:41 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 99 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 146 of 531 (699631)
05-22-2013 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by NoNukes
05-22-2013 1:15 PM


The reason businesses cannot do this is because their prices should already be set as high as the market will allow. Raising prices when overhead increases should result in fewer sales.
This assumes that there is an equal amount of money out there willing to be spent on the good or service. But if we've just increased the minimum wage that assumption doesn't hold and more work needs to be done before we can reach concrete conclusions about the effects.
abe: This evidenced by the fact that businesses are regularly increasing the prices of their goods and services as the cost of acquiring the materials or of the labour to process them changes.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by NoNukes, posted 05-22-2013 1:15 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Percy, posted 05-22-2013 3:30 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 99 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 155 of 531 (699645)
05-22-2013 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Percy
05-22-2013 2:41 PM


Actually you set it in a different context, the context of the bargaining process, additionally asking why I only wanted to consider one side. You'll have to find someone making that argument if you want an answer.
You said:
quote:
Independent of social legislation and labor unions and any other factors affecting compensation, a job is worth what someone is willing to pay.
I am asking what useful knowledge we acquire about the value of labour if we discount such things as the actions of labour unions? Why would we value the worth of a job independent of many of the factors that go into determining it?
Oh, gee, so simple!
I've only been around a few decades, but from what I've seen businesses raising their prices in response to increasing overhead costs may not be simple, but its certainly simple enough to be achievable, regularly. The business I work for does it on a monthly basis.
Companies still won't pay more than a job is worth to them. Lets take your minimum wage figure of 12,000/year and say that government has declared that this amount is sufficient and fair for both employers and employees. The problem is that government declaring something so doesn't have any effect on reality. It doesn't make 12,000/year sufficient and fair, and it doesn't make every single full time job worth 12,000/year.
There may be jobs that net less than 12,000 a year for a company. But that's not what the minimum wage is about. It's about putting a minimum price on human labour.
Are you able to show any correlation between unemployment rates and minimum wage changes allowing for real money terms? I mean changes in minimum wages tends to come only every now and again and usually comes in big leaps - so surely the evidence of jerky unemployment rates correlating to these changes would be apparent. Is it?
Jobs worth less than that will come under pressure to change or will disappear.
Right, but we don't need that many coopers or thatchers any more so that's not too big a problem. So now they are specialist jobs that due to their rarity can command higher wages than their historical counterparts could.
Raising the minimum wage can have the completely expected effect of reducing employment, something in great evidence right now in both Europe and the US as the least skilled (the youngest) are having the greatest difficulty finding employment.
It's not a settled and established fact that raising the minimum wage will always and necessarily reduce employment.
But how do we want society to be structured: Many of the people that do get work and grow the economy are reasonably comfortable and spending money in diverse ways, but with a higher unemployment rate. Or lower unemployment, but less money being paid to the workers such that they can only just scrape by.
A $billion dollar profit company can clearly afford to pay its low paid workers considerably more, but the pattern seems to be that the business expands and employs more people, who are later made redundant when the company has scale back in economic hard times.
I'm not making an argument against government sponsored social engineering. My key point is that markets set what a job is worth (wages), which is what someone is willing to pay and what someone else is willing to accept. Where you thought I differed with you is over things like government's and unions influence on wages, but I don't.
I don't think we differ really. I was just answering your question as to why don't let the markets just sort out wages. It's the same reason we don't let governors determine our speed on a steam train. Fine, the governor can help us with that, but we want a human driver too.
Raising the minimum wage can have the completely expected effect of reducing employment, something in great evidence right now in both Europe and the US as the least skilled (the youngest) are having the greatest difficulty finding employment.
I think it would be oversimplifying the current economic climate to say that the minimum wage is to blame for our levels of unemployment. We live in a global economy with no global government to oversee it. One confounding feature is salient to this subtopic - there are thousands of people who work for the company I work for in Asia who are doing jobs that British people are capable of but the Asian workers will accept lower wages...might this impact on unemployment rates?
Also important whenever government is involved is the law of unintended consequences. Western governments are big and powerful (i.e., they represent significant proportions of national economies), and they have a tendency to think their wisdom commensurate with their power, but obviously it's not.
We should also point out that the law of unintended consequences needs to be considered anyway. Do you really think that if Corporations had the power to influence society, they would do so in a way that benefited society as its primary reason? Or do you think they'd influence society to maximise their profits? There are numerous examples of the power and unaccountability of global corporations, and we should be aware of the potential unintended consequences of less government regulation (hint: remember the past ten years?)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Percy, posted 05-22-2013 2:41 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Percy, posted 05-22-2013 5:07 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 99 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 158 of 531 (699648)
05-22-2013 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Percy
05-22-2013 3:30 PM


A nominal amount of inflation is a sign of a healthy economy. Raising minimum wage to keep up with inflation is a good idea, but...
Isn't it odd that raising minimum wages to keep in line with inflation is resisted so strenuously?
As you say, we can't "reach concrete conclusions about the effects." You're argument boils down to, "We don't know for sure that something bad will happen if we do this, so let's do this."
No, my argument boils down to 'we don't know for sure, so asserting that 'Raising prices when overhead increases should result in fewer sales'.' is inappropriately premature.'
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Percy, posted 05-22-2013 3:30 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Taq, posted 05-22-2013 4:42 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 99 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(2)
Message 169 of 531 (699665)
05-22-2013 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Percy
05-22-2013 5:07 PM


Well, despite all my protests you seem absolutely certain of the point I was making.
Was it my repeatedly asking you what point it was you were making that clued you in on how certain I was about it?
Oh, gee, your company is successfully raising prices, I guess that settles it!
Is it your contention that my company is anomalous in some fashion? Are the companies in your locality still charging the same amount as they did in 1950?
You're again asking me to defend a position I did not take.
I'm sorry I thought when you were saying that
quote:
Companies still won't pay more than a job is worth to them... Jobs worth less than that will come under pressure to change or will disappear. Raising the minimum wage can have the completely expected effect of reducing employment...
you were suggesting that there was a link between raising the minimum wage and unemployment rates. What were you saying then?
This makes no sense. Let's change the number a bit to make the actual problem a bit more obvious. Let's say government raises the minimum wage to 20,000/year. The disappearing jobs won't be coopers and thatchers.
What jobs would disappear, then?
A company's responsibility is to its stockholders, not to the citizenry.
Actually companies do have responsibilities to the citizenry, but that aside not all companies have stockholders, either. Companies also have responsibilities to their workers (they must provide as safe and comfortable as possible working environment, adequate health and safety training, and sufficient remuneration for a full time worker to survive).
A government's responsibility is to its citizenry, not to company stockholders.
Actually a government has responsibilities to both these groups.
Unless government requires a company to pay higher wages, a company has an obligation to its stockholders to maximize profits by, among other things, minimizing costs, including salaries.
Indeed.
Now maybe your argument is that companies *should* pay higher salaries to their least paid workers if they can afford it, and I think that's an excellent sentiment, but it's not reality.
That's not really part of my argument. My argument is that because companies have pressures to drive wages down, and they have more power in wage negotiation than the workers, the government should enact legislation to prevent exploitation of the lowest paid worker's labour.
I don't think it was part of my argument that minimum wage is the sole cause of the current unemployment situation. What *was* part of my argument was that increases in minimum wage would have the greatest impact on the least skilled workers, the very young. Where are the greatest concentrations of unemployment in the current European economic slowdown? The very young.
But that correlation doesn't imply any causation. Any number of things could be causing problems in the young people finding work. A large number of competing equally skilled job seekers (a baby boom of some kind), or it could be that health has improved dramatically and older workers are staying in senior positions longer, meaning middle aged workers are having promotions delayed, meaning younger people aren't climbing the ladder anywhere. Or something else.
If you could show me some link between employment rates and introductions or increases in minimum wages that would be something we could actually discuss. I've never seen such data, perhaps you have. If you have seen data that just focuses on young people, that'd be interesting too.
Have you seen any actual studies that link minimum wage rises with youth unemployment?
We could pass legislation making available "starter jobs" at lower-than-prevailing-wage salaries to jump start both their careers and the economies of many nations, but that would be exploitative.
There are workfare schemes, Unpaid Work For The Unemployed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Percy, posted 05-22-2013 5:07 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Percy, posted 05-23-2013 10:02 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 99 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 179 of 531 (699698)
05-23-2013 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Percy
05-23-2013 10:02 AM


Was it my repeatedly asking you what point it was you were making that clued you in on how certain I was about it?
Interesting revisionism.
quote:
Why would we consider things independently of labour unions?
quote:
I'm asking you why would we consider wages independent unions
quote:
I am asking what useful knowledge we acquire about the value of labour if we discount such things as the actions of labour unions? Why would we value the worth of a job independent of many of the factors that go into determining it?
It doesn't look like revisionism to me, it certainly appears I kept asking you why we should consider wages without consideration to one party in the negotiation of those wages.
Yeah, right, I'm denying inflation.
So are you agreeing with me that as costs of doing business rise, so to do the prices the business charges?
quote:
Oh, gee, your company is successfully raising prices, I guess that settles it!
This seems to sarcastically be saying that my company is unique in its capacity to increase prices as exposure to expenses rises. If you were trying to say something else, perhaps you could try being straightforward with it.
My original points were that wages are set by market forces (which I guess I'm parenthetically forced to add, at risk of lengthy pursuit about points I haven't made, that I include the entire market environment with its regulations, tariffs, unions, etc.)
In that case in answer to your question:
quote:
Why shouldn't wages be set by the market?
is... they are.
It definitely is not equal to its contribution to the company's value, to the extent it can ever be calculated, which it rarely can.
Well nobody is suggesting that that is how wages are calculated. Marx and those that followed his footsteps would argue that a person should receive the value he adds to the product, and that in capitalism that value is 'stolen' by the capitalist.
I later elaborated that government regulations about wages do not change the reality of a job's value, and that minimum wage laws can price jobs out of the market.
I've never suggested that the minimum wage changes how much a job is worth to the company, it should be noted. I've just said it legislates a minimum price for human labour.
Maybe it does 'price jobs out of the market', but all you've done is say it.
. The higher something is priced, the less of it is purchased. The higher you set a wage for a job, the fewer people will be hired at that wage.
This would make sense if minimum wages were being ever increased faster than inflation. But that's not what is happening at all as far as I can see.
What I see is that minimum wage gets set, and it stays there for a good number of years, then it will periodically be bumped up to bring it in line.
This means that minimum wage labour steadily goes down in real price. So businesses can employ more minimum wage staff as time goes on. Then it gets bumped up and some businesses may find themselves overextended.
It seems the solution isn't to stop increasing the minimum wage, but to have more frequent and thus less sharp increments. Since these businesses are probably putting up their prices in line with inflation at least, they should not find paying wages in line with inflation strenuous.
Granted, if there was no minimum wage, we'd probably find higher employment. But then, if slavery was mandatory for 90% of the population we'd have good employment too...
The higher you set a wage for a job, the fewer people will be hired at that wage.
Let's say you set the minimum wage to be $1,000,000/hour.
Would this be a problem?
Well suddenly every working person becomes a millionaire. But then again, businesses won't be charging $10 for a cup of coffee anymore, they'd be charging $1million for it instead...so being a millionaire isn't all that great.
It'd be a problem for other reasons, obviously. I don't however see, how it necessarily leads to less employment - it just leads to a hyperinflationary sort of position that essentially wipes out everyone's savings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Percy, posted 05-23-2013 10:02 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Percy, posted 05-23-2013 2:47 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 99 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 188 of 531 (699708)
05-23-2013 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Percy
05-23-2013 2:47 PM


Every once in a while you slip into this mode of polite but incredibly persistent poking that's just a smokescreen for some very passive/aggressive behavior. Give it a rest. You're getting to be like the reincarnation of CrashFrog.
I'm not sure why our discussion had to devolve into personal criticism, I suggest you give that a rest.
Yes, of course. The question was obviously rhetorical.
To what end?
I believe such laws are a necessary but highly flawed as implemented blunt force instrument, and that as currently structured they have cost jobs at the lowest skill levels. You believe not.
Actually, I know not. Which is why I asked if you had seen some study or somesuch - to present it for my illumination.
Well yes, of course. What you're actually describing is a dramatic devaluing of the currency. You need to rethink both this misbegotten example and your highly questionable assumption that minimum wage increases just cycle money back into the economy in a way that doesn't affect businesses.
Why is example misbegotten? You neglect to say. Nor am I making the assumption you claim I am making. What I was saying is that if wages go up, prices go up. But that's fine, because wages have gone up. As long as prices aren't rising faster than wages we're all good.
I was quite clear that raising the minimum wage to $1million/hour clearly has multiple real world difficulties, it's not like I'm pretending this would be a good idea. It was just to highlight that higher wages doesn't intrinsically lead to less employment. It certainly might, I don't know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Percy, posted 05-23-2013 2:47 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Percy, posted 05-23-2013 4:16 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 99 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(2)
Message 192 of 531 (699712)
05-23-2013 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Percy
05-23-2013 4:16 PM


It devolved into personal criticism when you devolved it into personal criticism. You seem blissfully self-unaware.
And it seems I am destined to remain so. Give me a clue, in which post did I devolve this discussion into personal criticism? That is, criticising your personal behaviours or attributes.
But I didn't neglect to say. You've got a massive currency devaluation parading as a minimum wage increase.
I was talking only about jobs in isolation, independent of the all the mess that would cause for other reasons. In what sense was my reasoning more problematic that talking about a minimum wage of $50,000? I mean, assuming America keeps the dollar long enough, minimum wages will reach $1million dollars/hour and unless the future is Mega-City 1 (a comic book city with 87% unemployment rates due to robots doing all the work) I don't see why we must assume that this would be a problem for unemployment.
Yeah, we're all good except for the impact on unemployment at the lowest skill levels.
What's the alternative? More people working hard but being as impoverished as the some that were previously unemployed? What would you prefer: More employment, at wages that won't pay rent and food at the same time (ie., what happens when we let non-human market forces decide), or less employment at wages that do pay rent and food?
And I quoted you describing them and acknowledging that you were actually devaluing the currency (you called it "destroying savings" or some such).
Devaluing currency occurs during inflation. My use of hyperinflation (which is what I called it) doesn't really make any difference on that point.
If I had said $50,000 then I would have spoken about the fact that prices would rise to compensate for the higher overheads (and to capitalise on the increased amount of capital available to the market), so that coffee prices might rise to $25 / cup, which would be fine, because wages had gone up.
The unemployed? Hopefully whatever unemployment benefits they are entitled to will also rise in line with inflation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Percy, posted 05-23-2013 4:16 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Percy, posted 05-24-2013 7:39 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 99 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 198 of 531 (699735)
05-24-2013 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Percy
05-24-2013 7:39 AM


I understand that you believe raising the minimum wage will just cause prices to adjust leaving everything pretty much as before.
Well, no, I don't. I do believe that raising the minimum wage does result in prices adjusting, but that isn't to say everything is pretty much as before. If you want to make the claim that certain and specific things do change, I would like to see the evidence to support that though.
And I understand that you reject my view that jobs can be priced out of the market, that raising the minimum wage too much will cost jobs at the lower skill levels.
Again, no, I do not reject that. I asked if you could support your view with any studies you might have come across.
I'm content to let you go on believing what you believe.
I believe that this exit speech may well be connected to my challenging you to identify where I devolved this discussion into personal attacks and your inability to do so. You can let me continue believing that too, if you like. I'll remain ready to continue the discussion should you opt to respond.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Percy, posted 05-24-2013 7:39 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Percy, posted 05-24-2013 1:47 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 99 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 200 of 531 (699741)
05-24-2013 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Percy
05-24-2013 1:47 PM


You asked me to drop the 'passive aggressive behaviour' in Message 183. And I did, I dropped that entire line of discussion in Message 188. I did however challenge you because you engaged in a personal attack against me. Instead of an apology I received an unsupported tu quoque in Message 190.
I'm not sure what else I could have done, but sorry if you felt harassed by me. I think I did everything in my power to rectify that by avoiding discussing that line as soon as you made it clear you weren't happy with it. Now, did I really start personally attacking you, or did I just 'harass' you? I don't think I did personally attack you, I just didn't understand a point you were making and 'politely' but 'persistently' sought some clarification on the matter. You just felt it was 'passive/aggressive' for whatever reasons. I didn't launch an attack against your character, but you took a swipe at me and Crashfrog in the same rhetorical blow. I feel an apology is only appropriate for that, unless you think that kind of discourse is what you want around here.
Since I have dropped the harassing line of discussion, would you actually like to continue the other sub-discussions we were having? I suspect not, but since this is a discussion board, I'll re-extend the invitation to discuss by repeating my question to you
quote:
What would you prefer: More employment, at wages that won't pay rent and food at the same time (ie., what happens when we let non-human market forces decide), or less employment at wages that do pay rent and food?
I think that's a perfectly fair, and potentially fruitful question to ask in the context of this discussion, don't you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Percy, posted 05-24-2013 1:47 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Percy, posted 05-24-2013 2:37 PM Modulous has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024