1
   

Should we increase the minimum wage?

 
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2004 07:34 pm
I'm not at all convinced that a minimum wage increase is the answer, either, fox. I'm not adamantly opposed, but it's just a band-aid solution.

Have always been intrigued by a heavy sales tax. It'll never happen, though. The politics of it are deadly: discourage consumption? Not on your life.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2004 07:34 pm
Correct Roger. I live in an area where wages are pretty low compared to most of the rest of the country and cost of living is pretty high compared to a lot of the rest of the country - a double whammy. Still, minimum wage jobs at McDonalds go begging. The kids just don't want to do that anymore because they can make more money doing other things other places.

So, to get employees, McDonalds offers more money (or hires people who can't speak any known language but that's another story) and they charge a bit more for their burgers which nobody minds. If the government pretty well keeps its nose out of it, market forces so often do a better job than any of us could with quasi-welfare.
0 Replies
 
Anoxia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 05:06 am
tony2481 wrote:
The only way poverty will truly be ended is if the people choose to do it. The more the government tries to end it by taxing and redistributing income, the more people resent it and the less likely that they will give to the less privilidged. Also, the huge negitive impacts on the economy will hurt everybody.

I think relying on the goodness of people is much less of a pipe dream than relying on beaurocratic unaccountable system that is excessivly ineffecient and already proven to be ineffectve.


Welfare seems to keep people in the whole. I don't see how it encourages them to improve their lives much. So I agree with everything you're saying here.

And in response to some other comments in this thread: Since when is the minimum wage supposed to be a "living wage"?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 06:59 am
Tony writes:
Quote:
I think relying on the goodness of people is much less of a pipe dream than relying on beaurocratic unaccountable system that is excessivly ineffecient and already proven to be ineffectve
.

Actually I think American benevolence--and I think Americans tend to be the most giving people on Earth--and good old-fashioned American greed, when allowed to work relatively unhampered--are the two factors that provide the most efficient safety net. I do think unemployment insurance, temporary welfare, food stamps, disaster administration (FEMA) etc. are important safety nets.

But put any disaster--a fire, a hurricane, a flood, the bombing of the WTC---and there is always an enormous outpouring of generosity of cash, blankets, food, shelter etc. - UNTIL the government steps in. It feels good giving my $10 or $100 to people in need UNTIL the government offers them thousands and thousands and my little contribution becomes insignifiant. So charity dries up and government takes over. But the people get about 10 to 30% on the dollar from the government. They get 90% or better from a good charity.

And as for greed, you can bet your bottom dollar that not one person goes into business for the 'good of humankind'. People go into business to support themselves hopefully in good style. And the more money they make, the more people they need to help them make it and the more jobs are created. When government adds on regulation after regulation, including requirements for higher wages, etc., it becomes ever more difficult to make the profits. The business owner is unlikely to take those hits so people get laid off or get paid less money. It's as simple as that I think.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 07:05 am
Every time we have a wage case here to increase the minimum wage, employers cry poor. "It will cost job" is the old line they trot out every time. NOT ONCE has the unemployment level risen after a wage rise. They screamed recently when the lowest paid workers got a pay rise that didn't even amount to an adult movie ticket.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 07:06 am
BTW, the minimum wage in Australia is roughly double that of the US. I don't believe our cost of living is even close to being double of the US.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 07:14 am
PD writes:
Quote:
Have always been intrigued by a heavy sales tax. It'll never happen, though. The politics of it are deadly: discourage consumption? Not on your life.


I wonder. Somebody once said that Americans should pay their taxes once a month. You get ALL your pay for two or three weeks, and then ALL the taxes are deducted from one check. People are sheep in that they are so easy to lull into complacency. Most don't even look at the taxes they pay each week but just consider the net their income. If they realized how much the government was actually taking, there would be a national riot demanding tax reform immediately.

Now consider that getting ALL your pay every payday was the norm. For most of us, we would have an immediate 20 to 30% or so increase in income. More money to invest and grow wealth. More money to spend on what we wanted. Do you think a national sales tax that effectively inreased the costs of goods and services would discourage consumption if we all had a lot more cash at our disposal to spend? I don't. Most states have a sales tax now. It would not require a new layer of bureaucracy for the states to continue to collect the tax and send whatever portion of it was the federal tax on to Washington.

I think a charismatic leader--somebody for instance like Ross Perot who was a nut but boy could he communicate--could explain how it would work to the American people. And without the massive income tax collecting bureaucracy the federal government wouldn't need to collect as much as they do now. Once the American people are relatively unified in wanting something to happen, our government generally makes it happen.
0 Replies
 
Anoxia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 11:17 am
Foxfyre, are you a libertarian? Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 11:33 am
100% libertarian Anoxia but definitely a 'right' leaning one. I don't support every plank of the libertarian platform, but definitely support the underlying theories.
0 Replies
 
Anoxia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 12:54 pm
I thought I recognized one of my own Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 02:02 pm
I knew it!!!

Fox, are you just playing devil's advocate on here a lot?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 02:54 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Correct Roger. I live in an area where wages are pretty low compared to most of the rest of the country and cost of living is pretty high compared to a lot of the rest of the country - a double whammy.


I'm only 150 miles north of you, Foxfyre, and believe me, it's exactly the same situation and same area.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 02:57 pm
I support getting rid of minimum wage and addressing it through market forces.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 03:07 pm
At some level, the labor market becomes competitive and efficient. That level is far removed from those for whom minimum wage is an issue. IMO, of course.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 03:25 pm
Cyclop I rarely play Devil's advocate. I usually try to think outside the box and I get myself into all kinds of trouble when I won't conform to how they think I should think. But I'm getting to the point I am content to be perfect in my imperfection. Smile

150 miles north Roger? I'm in Albuquerque and yes, just about anywhere north of here has similar if not worse problems.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 03:32 pm
I tend to agree with Craven re the minimum wage though I don't strongly oppose a reasonable floor just to prevent unscrupulous people from exploiting the desperate or the ignorant. I don't think that floor needs to be as much as it is now, however.
0 Replies
 
Centroles
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 03:41 pm
It sounds like a lot of the people who're replying didn't even bother to read my actual post.

Based on how their criticisms have nothing to do with anything I actually said, it sounds as though they simply read the topic title and assumed what I was advocating, increase the minimum wage without doing anything to compensate businesses for it.

If you actually read my opening post, you have no basis for arguing that the rich or businesses would be hurt by this proposal or that jobs would decrease as a result.

I specifically outlined counterbalances that prevent this from happening.

Even if you misinterpreted what I am saying, many of the arguments are still faulty....

Here are some points that Wilso brought up...
Quote:
Every time we have a wage case here to increase the minimum wage, employers cry poor. "It will cost job" is the old line they trot out every time. NOT ONCE has the unemployment level risen after a wage rise.

BTW, the minimum wage in Australia is roughly double that of the US. I don't believe our cost of living is even close to being double of the US. [/b]

It's also naive to assume that as demand goes up, so would prices. In the modern economy, more demand implies more production, more competition and more jobs.

Keep in mind, I'm not talking about limited goods like gold and silver. I'm talking about products, which we can make as many as neccesary to meet demand simply by expanding and hiring more people.

I'm curious Foxfyre, have you seen the stats on how much people actually donate to charity. How about the stats on how much donations increased following Bush's tax cuts.

Libertarians and republicans love to argue that charities could ever come close to govt. aid because americans are so benevolent. They love to argue that cutting taxes will increase charitable contributions.

Why do they insist on ignoring the information out there on this that completely flies in the face of these unfounded claims?

People make almost as much on welfare as they would working 60 hrs a week at a minimum wage job. Either way they barely have enough to live. But in one way, they get insurance and don't have to do any work. The other way, they have to work hard and still would be sunk if they had healthcare needs.

It's easy to see why so many people choose to remain on welfare rather than go out and work. They have little to gain and almost everything to lose.

They would be doing a lot better and leading a better life if they go into crime. And that's why people opt to do so inspite of the risks involved.

If with hard work, people could actually live a half way decent life, maybe more would opt to do so.

That's why we need to increase the wage without hurting businesses.

Also like Roger points out, minimum wage jobs typically go for work such as flipping burgers at McDonalds or cleaning rooms at Motel 6. They can't outsource this work to do it any cheaper even if minimum wage was to go up.

Trickle down economics doesn't work. Companies don't hire people just because they have extra money lying around. They hire people because they need to hire them to do work. And extra money they have will go into their own pockets and increasing how much money they get to keep only fattens their pockets. It doesn't increase jobs.

Demand is what increases jobs. When poor people make more and can afford to buy more, this increases demand for products.

Thus companies need to open more factories and hire more workers to meet demand and cash in on it. And that's exactly what they do.

Trickle up economics does work, trickle down economics doesn't.

Trickle up economics IS market forces. As lower income individuals get a higher living standard, spending increases and so does business profit.

Unlike the trickle down economics that Reagan and Bush have blown trillions of our revenue on, trickle up economics has been proven to work in developing Asian countries that now have both a much larger middle class and a greater revenue.

There has never been controversy over the assertion that increased demand leads to increased growth, economic output, and revenue. And there is even more evidence that increasing standard of living for the lower class increases demand.

This is the very basis for market growth.

I challenge anyone to prove this basic economic and logical prinicple wrong.

Ask any economist, what happens when minimum wage workers who can't make ends meet start getting a living wage. They will tell you that that demand for several goods and services will go up.

Now ask them what happens when demand goes up. They will tell you that jobs go up, wages go up, profits go up, and competition and corporate expansion goes up.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 03:56 pm
Centroles, where is the compensation to the businesses to come from? Out of your pocket? Out of mine? Let's check a few other threads on how economics work to see what that ploy would cost American workers. Seems to me if you reduce the income of Citizen A in order to increase the income of Citizen B, there is no more money in the system to encourage Citizen C to build a new factory.

We don't have any data on charitable giving in relation to increased income via tax rate reduction yet but somebody will do the study.

I am all for workers getting a living wage but I posted Walter Williams' recipe for that happening. He (and I) don't think the government, who gets ALL its funds from the wage earners, can guarantee everybody a living wage without destroying the very incentives that makes the USA the most productive nation in the world.
0 Replies
 
Centroles
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 04:06 pm
I'm not advocating a living wage for everyone.

I'm simply saying that anyone willing to work for 60 hrs a week should be able to earn a living wage.

It's not about how much money is in the system Foxfyre.

It's about demand.

If citizen B already could afford and has pretty much everything and citizen A has essentially nothing even thought they work 60 hrs a week.

When citizen A gets a living wage, they will buy things and demand for these things will go up.

Thus citizen C has more of an incentive to build a factory to produce more of said things.

Citizens D and E previously unemployed are hired as employees for this factory and thus can afford to buy things of their own.

Citizen F thus builds another factory to produce products to meet this demand.

And on and on and on.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 04:14 pm
You still didn't saywhere the money to get citizen A to a living wage will come from.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 05/18/2024 at 05:29:01