minimum wage
-
AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6632
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
minimum wage
It's not the amount of money, it's the buying power of the money & since the '80's prices have soared while salaries remain flat.
-
Patsy Warnick
- Posts: 4567
- Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 12:53 am
minimum wage
YZGI
to compensate you'd have to raise your prices and perhaps have fewer workers, which would lead to possible overtime for the workers to bridge that gap of fewer workers.
Are you living in a "Right to Work State" by any chance?
Patsy
to compensate you'd have to raise your prices and perhaps have fewer workers, which would lead to possible overtime for the workers to bridge that gap of fewer workers.
Are you living in a "Right to Work State" by any chance?
Patsy
-
fuzzywuzzy
- Posts: 6596
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm
minimum wage
Patsy Warnick;1456417 wrote: YZGI
to compensate you'd have to raise your prices and perhaps have fewer workers, which would lead to possible overtime for the workers to bridge that gap of fewer workers.
Are you living in a "Right to Work State" by any chance?
Patsy
Every single time there is talk of a wag rise, big business says exactly that same line. "to raise your prices and perhaps have fewer workers" and it never ever happens. Truth is, more money is put back into the economy because of more disposable income, people buy more houses, more cars, more Tv's etc etc.
to compensate you'd have to raise your prices and perhaps have fewer workers, which would lead to possible overtime for the workers to bridge that gap of fewer workers.
Are you living in a "Right to Work State" by any chance?
Patsy
Every single time there is talk of a wag rise, big business says exactly that same line. "to raise your prices and perhaps have fewer workers" and it never ever happens. Truth is, more money is put back into the economy because of more disposable income, people buy more houses, more cars, more Tv's etc etc.
-
fuzzywuzzy
- Posts: 6596
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm
minimum wage
Patsy Warnick;1456275 wrote: Seattle Washington Council has passed $ 15.00 @ hour minimum wage.
Others to follow.
Patsy
that is fantastic!!!!!!!!!
Others to follow.
Patsy
that is fantastic!!!!!!!!!
minimum wage
YZGI;1456407 wrote: To large or small businesses, more paid out in wages equals either less in profit or higher prices. Less profit in larger corporations will not be acceptable, so prices will be jacked to counter. Even us small companies will have to raise prices if we're forced to increase payroll. So then the "higher" paid minimum wage worker may end up with the same buying power they had before the wage hike. I know if I have to raise all of my workers (including entry level positions) pay I will HAVE to raise my prices just to stay in business and keep my head above water.
If they raise minimum wages to lets say $10.00 an hour, I will have to also raise my experienced workers who are making $20.00 an hour to $23-$25 an hour so that they are the level above entry level workers that they should be. How do I compensate for that? I raise prices. I have to if I want to make a profit or I go out of business.
It's a level playing field though is it not? If you have to raise prices beause of wage rises so does everybody else.
It's not just wages that affect profit though is it. Governments might think they can control inflation (I wonlt go I to that daft monetarist theory that you control infkation by controlling the mioney supply) they can't control commodity prices on the international market and we're looking at ever higher price for metals, foodstuffs and the like and that's omly evr going to go up. They let commodity brokers inflate and deflate prices at will to suit them instead of taking action against those that rig the market. It's lack o regulation and te insane dea that you could trust the banks that almost wrecked the world economy - wasn't just america tht de-regulated we did it as well. Free market economy, good for business is seen by many as an excuse an excuse to rip everybody off. Employers bleating about higher wages affecting their profits (not you this comment is not aimed at you) seem to forget whose labour generates the wealth for them. All most people want is a fair exchange for their labour.
If they raise minimum wages to lets say $10.00 an hour, I will have to also raise my experienced workers who are making $20.00 an hour to $23-$25 an hour so that they are the level above entry level workers that they should be. How do I compensate for that? I raise prices. I have to if I want to make a profit or I go out of business.
It's a level playing field though is it not? If you have to raise prices beause of wage rises so does everybody else.
It's not just wages that affect profit though is it. Governments might think they can control inflation (I wonlt go I to that daft monetarist theory that you control infkation by controlling the mioney supply) they can't control commodity prices on the international market and we're looking at ever higher price for metals, foodstuffs and the like and that's omly evr going to go up. They let commodity brokers inflate and deflate prices at will to suit them instead of taking action against those that rig the market. It's lack o regulation and te insane dea that you could trust the banks that almost wrecked the world economy - wasn't just america tht de-regulated we did it as well. Free market economy, good for business is seen by many as an excuse an excuse to rip everybody off. Employers bleating about higher wages affecting their profits (not you this comment is not aimed at you) seem to forget whose labour generates the wealth for them. All most people want is a fair exchange for their labour.
-
fuzzywuzzy
- Posts: 6596
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm
minimum wage
Retailers warn of job cuts after Fair Work Commission lifts minimum wage by $18.70 per week - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Retailers have warned that staff will have to be sacked in the wake of a decision to raise the minimum wage by $18.70 a week.
Unions, however, say the increase of 3 per cent from July 1 - a rise to $640.90 per week - will not be enough to help workers cope with extra costs stemming from the federal budget.
The decision by the nation's industrial umpire, the Fair Work Commission (FWC), will directly affect around 1.5 million Australians on award wages.
FWC president Justice Iain Ross said there had recently been almost no growth in the real value of award wages while other employees had enjoyed substantial pay increases.
"The deterioration in the relative living standards of award-reliant workers, the needs of the low-paid, the recent widespread improvement in labor productivity growth, the historically low levels of real unit labor costs, and the absence, in aggregate, of cost pressures from the labour market, are all factors favouring a real increase in minimum wages," he said.
One moderating factor was the 0.25 per cent increase to the superannuation rate to apply from July 1.
Recently there's been a lot of talk about robotic work sites because people are just too expensive to pay................Gee I wonder who would be putting that kind of talk about the place?
Retailers have warned that staff will have to be sacked in the wake of a decision to raise the minimum wage by $18.70 a week.
Unions, however, say the increase of 3 per cent from July 1 - a rise to $640.90 per week - will not be enough to help workers cope with extra costs stemming from the federal budget.
The decision by the nation's industrial umpire, the Fair Work Commission (FWC), will directly affect around 1.5 million Australians on award wages.
FWC president Justice Iain Ross said there had recently been almost no growth in the real value of award wages while other employees had enjoyed substantial pay increases.
"The deterioration in the relative living standards of award-reliant workers, the needs of the low-paid, the recent widespread improvement in labor productivity growth, the historically low levels of real unit labor costs, and the absence, in aggregate, of cost pressures from the labour market, are all factors favouring a real increase in minimum wages," he said.
One moderating factor was the 0.25 per cent increase to the superannuation rate to apply from July 1.
Recently there's been a lot of talk about robotic work sites because people are just too expensive to pay................Gee I wonder who would be putting that kind of talk about the place?
-
Patsy Warnick
- Posts: 4567
- Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 12:53 am
minimum wage
Robotic workers are all ready replacing humans. When you order that burger at a Fast Food Co. robots will be assembling it.
Robots have replaced workers in most factory's - car industry
Didn't Pres. Obama already try to put money back into the economy and bail out factory's - to create jobs - better paying jobs?
As far as Seattle raising the minimum wage - they're already at $10.00 @ hour
Seattle is a expensive area to live. Beautiful area.
$ 15.00 @ hour and most can't count change back - could be robots already.:wah:
Patsy
Robots have replaced workers in most factory's - car industry
Didn't Pres. Obama already try to put money back into the economy and bail out factory's - to create jobs - better paying jobs?
As far as Seattle raising the minimum wage - they're already at $10.00 @ hour
Seattle is a expensive area to live. Beautiful area.
$ 15.00 @ hour and most can't count change back - could be robots already.:wah:
Patsy
minimum wage
The average wage at McDonalds is $7.73/hour.
The CEO's salary at McDonalds works out to be $9,247/hour (1,196 times the average worker wage.
The CEO's salary at McDonalds works out to be $9,247/hour (1,196 times the average worker wage.
minimum wage
Wandrin;1456461 wrote: The average wage at McDonalds is $7.73/hour.
The CEO's salary at McDonalds works out to be $9,247/hour (1,196 times the average worker wage.
What was the difference in the 50's?
The CEO's salary at McDonalds works out to be $9,247/hour (1,196 times the average worker wage.
What was the difference in the 50's?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
minimum wage
Bruv;1456464 wrote: What was the difference in the 50's?
McDonalds was around in the '50s?
McDonalds was around in the '50s?
minimum wage
Bruv;1456464 wrote: What was the difference in the 50's?
I actually remember going to the ice house with my dad to fill up one of these,
There is a reason we called it WOMEN"S work.
I suspect there was a lot of labor going on at home which alleviated the demand of power from the peasants.
I actually remember going to the ice house with my dad to fill up one of these,
There is a reason we called it WOMEN"S work.
I suspect there was a lot of labor going on at home which alleviated the demand of power from the peasants.
What happened to Kamala Harris' campaign?
She had the black vote all locked up.
She had the black vote all locked up.
minimum wage
Patsy Warnick;1456417 wrote: YZGI
to compensate you'd have to raise your prices and perhaps have fewer workers, which would lead to possible overtime for the workers to bridge that gap of fewer workers.
Are you living in a "Right to Work State" by any chance?
Patsy
Yes, Kansas is right to work
to compensate you'd have to raise your prices and perhaps have fewer workers, which would lead to possible overtime for the workers to bridge that gap of fewer workers.
Are you living in a "Right to Work State" by any chance?
Patsy
Yes, Kansas is right to work
minimum wage
Wandrin;1456470 wrote: McDonalds was around in the '50s?
Apparently so
But any average wage and CEO's comparitive wage would have done
Apparently so
But any average wage and CEO's comparitive wage would have done
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
minimum wage
Im am sure you don't grasp the meaning of my posts sometimes Mr Tude.......obviously my fault.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
minimum wage
I think the American term "Right to Work State" would be called a Closed Shop in the UK.
The need to be a Union member to work in certain trades?
The need to be a Union member to work in certain trades?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
minimum wage
Bruv;1456483 wrote: I think the American term "Right to Work State" would be called a Closed Shop in the UK.
The need to be a Union member to work in certain trades?
Nope. the Opposite.
It means you cannot be required to join a union to work in the state.
If you can convince someone you know how to use a hammer, you can hire on as a carpenter and work for minimum wage. Which of course means housing can be built for half the labor costs in a right to work state. Of course, you get what you pay for, sometimes.
The need to be a Union member to work in certain trades?
Nope. the Opposite.
It means you cannot be required to join a union to work in the state.
If you can convince someone you know how to use a hammer, you can hire on as a carpenter and work for minimum wage. Which of course means housing can be built for half the labor costs in a right to work state. Of course, you get what you pay for, sometimes.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
minimum wage
LarsMac;1456485 wrote: Nope. the Opposite.
It means you cannot be required to join a union to work in the state.
If you can convince someone you know how to use a hammer, you can hire on as a carpenter and work for minimum wage. Which of course means housing can be built for half the labor costs in a right to work state. Of course, you get what you pay for, sometimes.
I may be wrong but that is what I meant, "Closed Shops" were rampant here for Merchant seaman ,Print and Docks, so jobs were only given to Union members, so the job was closed to all others. I once wanted to run away to sea, I was asked by the shipping line "Are you a union member?" and from the Union when I enquired "Have you a job?" they both said I had to have either a job before I could have union membership or union membership before I could get a job........then my head blew up.
I understand Close Shops were banned long ago, and these days we have Polish 'Tradesmen' in most building trades, many willing to work for less than UK tradesmen......so almost the same as the US, and causing unrest in the building trade like the Mexicans over there.
It means you cannot be required to join a union to work in the state.
If you can convince someone you know how to use a hammer, you can hire on as a carpenter and work for minimum wage. Which of course means housing can be built for half the labor costs in a right to work state. Of course, you get what you pay for, sometimes.
I may be wrong but that is what I meant, "Closed Shops" were rampant here for Merchant seaman ,Print and Docks, so jobs were only given to Union members, so the job was closed to all others. I once wanted to run away to sea, I was asked by the shipping line "Are you a union member?" and from the Union when I enquired "Have you a job?" they both said I had to have either a job before I could have union membership or union membership before I could get a job........then my head blew up.
I understand Close Shops were banned long ago, and these days we have Polish 'Tradesmen' in most building trades, many willing to work for less than UK tradesmen......so almost the same as the US, and causing unrest in the building trade like the Mexicans over there.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
minimum wage
Bruv;1456488 wrote: .......and these days we have Polish 'Tradesmen' in most building trades, many willing to work for less than UK tradesmen......so almost the same as the US, and causing unrest in the building trade......
I'm afraid so. Many professions , and I include mine, have been devalued by the huge amount of cheap - often Eastern European - labour. We should have ensured that any immigrants must be paid the "going rate", instead of ensuring companies can employ them, often without the proper credentials, the likes of which we can't compete with.
When we are told that mass immigration is "good for the economy", it is for many construction companies employing cheap labour. That ensures competitive tenders for them and a struggle to get work for us
I'm afraid so. Many professions , and I include mine, have been devalued by the huge amount of cheap - often Eastern European - labour. We should have ensured that any immigrants must be paid the "going rate", instead of ensuring companies can employ them, often without the proper credentials, the likes of which we can't compete with.
When we are told that mass immigration is "good for the economy", it is for many construction companies employing cheap labour. That ensures competitive tenders for them and a struggle to get work for us
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
minimum wage
Snowfire;1456491 wrote: I'm afraid so. Many professions , and I include mine, have been devalued by the huge amount of cheap - often Eastern European - labour. We should have ensured that any immigrants must be paid the "going rate", instead of ensuring companies can employ them, often without the proper credentials, the likes of which we can't compete with.
When we are told that mass immigration is "good for the economy", it is for many construction companies employing cheap labour. That ensures competitive tenders for them and a struggle to get work for us
Nudge nudge wink wink ..................You are sounding like a racist now.
My former landlord changed to Polish maintenance to his building, think I have mentioned it here before. The flat above our shop kept blowing the electrics, so they had to call in the old firm out of hours to sort it out. The electrician was speechless when he realised an electric shower had fused wires together, that he disconnected to make it safe.
Where I had worked for 20 odd years, employed two Poles when myself and another (cough) key worker fell ill, I visited the place last week, the Boss thought the sun shone out of these guys backside.......because they are very good, reliable punctual and work hard.
So it works both ways, not sure what the answer is.
When we are told that mass immigration is "good for the economy", it is for many construction companies employing cheap labour. That ensures competitive tenders for them and a struggle to get work for us
Nudge nudge wink wink ..................You are sounding like a racist now.
My former landlord changed to Polish maintenance to his building, think I have mentioned it here before. The flat above our shop kept blowing the electrics, so they had to call in the old firm out of hours to sort it out. The electrician was speechless when he realised an electric shower had fused wires together, that he disconnected to make it safe.
Where I had worked for 20 odd years, employed two Poles when myself and another (cough) key worker fell ill, I visited the place last week, the Boss thought the sun shone out of these guys backside.......because they are very good, reliable punctual and work hard.
So it works both ways, not sure what the answer is.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
minimum wage
Bruv;1456496 wrote: Nudge nudge wink wink ..................You are sounding like a racist now.
My former landlord changed to Polish maintenance to his building, think I have mentioned it here before. The flat above our shop kept blowing the electrics, so they had to call in the old firm out of hours to sort it out. The electrician was speechless when he realised an electric shower had fused wires together, that he disconnected to make it safe.
Where I had worked for 20 odd years, employed two Poles when myself and another (cough) key worker fell ill, I visited the place last week, the Boss thought the sun shone out of these guys backside.......because they are very good, reliable punctual and work hard.
So it works both ways, not sure what the answer is.
Your right. They have a good work ethic. My problem is not the fellas themselves or their skills, it's that construction companies of all sizes have employed them at vastly deflated wages on an industrial scale, which leaves us struggling to compete.
They should have been employed on an equal basis and paid the going rate. Stood on their own merit and rewarded accordingly.
It's quite depressing to see skilled craftsmen devalued in this way and for greedy bosses to take advantage.
31 years in the business and I'm at times, struggling to earn what I was 10 years ago.
But Never mind. We're all in it together !!
Cynical ? Moi ?
My former landlord changed to Polish maintenance to his building, think I have mentioned it here before. The flat above our shop kept blowing the electrics, so they had to call in the old firm out of hours to sort it out. The electrician was speechless when he realised an electric shower had fused wires together, that he disconnected to make it safe.
Where I had worked for 20 odd years, employed two Poles when myself and another (cough) key worker fell ill, I visited the place last week, the Boss thought the sun shone out of these guys backside.......because they are very good, reliable punctual and work hard.
So it works both ways, not sure what the answer is.
Your right. They have a good work ethic. My problem is not the fellas themselves or their skills, it's that construction companies of all sizes have employed them at vastly deflated wages on an industrial scale, which leaves us struggling to compete.
They should have been employed on an equal basis and paid the going rate. Stood on their own merit and rewarded accordingly.
It's quite depressing to see skilled craftsmen devalued in this way and for greedy bosses to take advantage.
31 years in the business and I'm at times, struggling to earn what I was 10 years ago.
But Never mind. We're all in it together !!
Cynical ? Moi ?
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
minimum wage
Problem being they are foriegners looking to better themselves in a strange country and bend over backward to please, afraid to ask too much or rock the boat, taking what they can to support their families.They are as much victims as we are.
So as always it's the big boys at the top fault....................nothing changes.
So as always it's the big boys at the top fault....................nothing changes.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
minimum wage
I see the minimum wage as being essential. Without it the very nature of business is to get their costs as low as possible, and with the unemployment situation as it is, there's never any shortage of someone to fill it, regardless of how exploitative the wage is.
This doesn't only apply to unskilled jobs, such as burger flipping, though. It applies to people, such as myself who have gone through the hard work of further education to achieve all the qualifications we were told to be essential in life, and the years of experience - only to find that these White Collar jobs pay no more than a burger flipper.
Then there are the hoards of illegal & legal EU immigrants who are always eager to take cash in hand, below minimum wage jobs, thus undercutting the legal, tax paying workers, while the Cash In Hand worker is actually better off than the legal Minimum Wage worker, as the Gross figure he receives is also his Net figure by not having the deductions for Tax & N.I. etc being taken.
The Industrial Revolution of the 1800s put thousands of workers onto the breadlines because it was cheaper to use the latest technology in the mills, rather than skilled workers. Things are no different now. The factories have robots & the offices have computers. With an ever increasing population & an ever decreasing demand for employees, the resulting outcome is obvious. Driving everyone to desperation to clutch at the straws of a few pennies here & there.
This doesn't only apply to unskilled jobs, such as burger flipping, though. It applies to people, such as myself who have gone through the hard work of further education to achieve all the qualifications we were told to be essential in life, and the years of experience - only to find that these White Collar jobs pay no more than a burger flipper.
Then there are the hoards of illegal & legal EU immigrants who are always eager to take cash in hand, below minimum wage jobs, thus undercutting the legal, tax paying workers, while the Cash In Hand worker is actually better off than the legal Minimum Wage worker, as the Gross figure he receives is also his Net figure by not having the deductions for Tax & N.I. etc being taken.
The Industrial Revolution of the 1800s put thousands of workers onto the breadlines because it was cheaper to use the latest technology in the mills, rather than skilled workers. Things are no different now. The factories have robots & the offices have computers. With an ever increasing population & an ever decreasing demand for employees, the resulting outcome is obvious. Driving everyone to desperation to clutch at the straws of a few pennies here & there.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
minimum wage
AnneBoleyn;1456414 wrote: It's not the amount of money, it's the buying power of the money & since the '80's prices have soared while salaries remain flat.
Exactly. This is because the value of the dollar has tanked, relative to the international exchange system. So why aren't we trying to strengthen the dollar, thus lowering prices and increasing the buying power of Joe-citizen's paycheck? That's the better long-term solution, imo.
Exactly. This is because the value of the dollar has tanked, relative to the international exchange system. So why aren't we trying to strengthen the dollar, thus lowering prices and increasing the buying power of Joe-citizen's paycheck? That's the better long-term solution, imo.
minimum wage
Accountable;1456706 wrote: Exactly. This is because the value of the dollar has tanked, relative to the international exchange system. So why aren't we trying to strengthen the dollar, thus lowering prices and increasing the buying power of Joe-citizen's paycheck? That's the better long-term solution, imo.
It's called Greed.
The more ability someone has to pay for something, the more the seller wants out of the deal, so the prices go up. Then the customer needs more income in order to keep up with these increases in prices, and the whole thing just continues to flip-flop.
The less there is of something the more valuable it becomes which is why works of art rocket in price as soon as the artist dies. No more works being made to replace those that get lost or destroyed. Therefore the value will continue to go up. Nothing to do with the beauty of the work. It's just another form of currency.
The only way to increase the value of a currency is not to print any - or better still, destroy some of what there is.
It's called Greed.
The more ability someone has to pay for something, the more the seller wants out of the deal, so the prices go up. Then the customer needs more income in order to keep up with these increases in prices, and the whole thing just continues to flip-flop.
The less there is of something the more valuable it becomes which is why works of art rocket in price as soon as the artist dies. No more works being made to replace those that get lost or destroyed. Therefore the value will continue to go up. Nothing to do with the beauty of the work. It's just another form of currency.
The only way to increase the value of a currency is not to print any - or better still, destroy some of what there is.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
minimum wage
You set your bar really low to define greed. and your scenario is only one very minor way of many that cause inflation. Most money is electronic now. There's not a paper dollar representing every dollar in circulation. Most new US dollars created goes to buy up US bonds. It's called monetizing the debt. That, and keeping interest rates artificially low has pumped tons of new dollars into circulation without having anything new of value to base it on. That, combined with our weak economy, are driving the dollar down, prices up.
Using your scenario, if the minimum wage wasn't around to keep wages artificially high, demand would drop because people couldn't afford to pay higher prices. Vendors would be forced to charge less or go out of business. Suppliers would have to pay less or lose their customers, the vendors. prices would have to drop until people could buy again, then stabilize when supply and demand hit equilibrium. This is the dreaded laissez-faire economy gmc is so against.
Using your scenario, if the minimum wage wasn't around to keep wages artificially high, demand would drop because people couldn't afford to pay higher prices. Vendors would be forced to charge less or go out of business. Suppliers would have to pay less or lose their customers, the vendors. prices would have to drop until people could buy again, then stabilize when supply and demand hit equilibrium. This is the dreaded laissez-faire economy gmc is so against.
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
minimum wage
tude dog;1456037 wrote: There was a time in life when I saw a purpose for a minimum wage and that was a long time ago.
Minimum wage IS necessary.
tude dog;1456037 wrote: What really got me was this cartoon,
Automation stealing jobs has been a problem since the toaster was invented. Perhaps even earlier than that.
tude dog;1456037 wrote: Obama: "no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty"
This is why the dole must reflect a living standard for even those who have no job. In other words, unemployment benefits ought to be at minimum wage - and minimum wage above that. What Obama said is rubbish and is what I think you call a "cop out". It means that it is OK for Americans to starve - you just have to decide who.
Minimum wage IS necessary.
tude dog;1456037 wrote: What really got me was this cartoon,
Automation stealing jobs has been a problem since the toaster was invented. Perhaps even earlier than that.
tude dog;1456037 wrote: Obama: "no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty"
This is why the dole must reflect a living standard for even those who have no job. In other words, unemployment benefits ought to be at minimum wage - and minimum wage above that. What Obama said is rubbish and is what I think you call a "cop out". It means that it is OK for Americans to starve - you just have to decide who.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
minimum wage
High Threshold;1456771 wrote: [...] unemployment benefits ought to be at minimum wage - and minimum wage above that. [...]
Um ....
Um ....
-
AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6632
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
minimum wage
Accountable;1456778 wrote: Um ....
HT--In the U.S. the worker & employer pay part of the Unemployment benefit. It is Insurance, & based on your salary. Why should the worker be punished for being laid off? You don't collect if you are fired because as an employee you stink. It's a system We pay for in Advance--Insurance.
HT--In the U.S. the worker & employer pay part of the Unemployment benefit. It is Insurance, & based on your salary. Why should the worker be punished for being laid off? You don't collect if you are fired because as an employee you stink. It's a system We pay for in Advance--Insurance.
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
minimum wage
Accountable;1456778 wrote: Um ....
According to what tude dog posted, Obama (America) has no problem with a portion of its population living in poverty. Let's put his own words into their proper perspective: ANYONE WITHOUT FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT MAY JUST AS WELL LIVE IN POVERTY - AND THAT'S OK WITH ME.
Is that a nation you can live in?
According to what tude dog posted, Obama (America) has no problem with a portion of its population living in poverty. Let's put his own words into their proper perspective: ANYONE WITHOUT FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT MAY JUST AS WELL LIVE IN POVERTY - AND THAT'S OK WITH ME.
Is that a nation you can live in?
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
minimum wage
AnneBoleyn;1456779 wrote: HT--In the U.S. the worker & employer pay part of the Unemployment benefit. It is Insurance, & based on your salary. Why should the worker be punished for being laid off? You don't collect if you are fired because as an employee you stink. It's a system We pay for in Advance--Insurance.
I can only disagree with you if I were to believe that ONLY THOSE WHO DO NOT WANT TO WORK ARE UNEMPLOYED.
I can only disagree with you if I were to believe that ONLY THOSE WHO DO NOT WANT TO WORK ARE UNEMPLOYED.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
minimum wage
High Threshold;1456784 wrote: According to what tude dog posted, Obama (America) has no problem with a portion of its population living in poverty. Let's put his own words into their proper perspective: ANYONE WITHOUT FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT MAY JUST AS WELL LIVE IN POVERTY - AND THAT'S OK WITH ME.
Is that a nation you can live in?
First, that's nowhere near equivalent to what President Obama said. It doesn't follow.
Second, the only part of your post I addressed was what you said about minimum wage and unemployment benefits. The statement is mathematically impossible. I thought it was a funny faux pas.
Is that a nation you can live in?
First, that's nowhere near equivalent to what President Obama said. It doesn't follow.
Second, the only part of your post I addressed was what you said about minimum wage and unemployment benefits. The statement is mathematically impossible. I thought it was a funny faux pas.
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
minimum wage
Accountable;1456786 wrote: First, that's nowhere near equivalent to what President Obama said. It doesn't follow.
Excuse me? The quote is as follows; "no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty". Would you care to point out what part of what I wrote "doesn't follow"?
Accountable;1456786 wrote: ...... what you said about minimum wage and unemployment benefits. The statement is mathematically impossible.
No it isn't. Our unemployment is on the rise yet we have no "poverty" at all in Sweden. Are you saying that our figures are incorrect - or that we are blind? Mislead? Liars?
Excuse me? The quote is as follows; "no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty". Would you care to point out what part of what I wrote "doesn't follow"?
Accountable;1456786 wrote: ...... what you said about minimum wage and unemployment benefits. The statement is mathematically impossible.
No it isn't. Our unemployment is on the rise yet we have no "poverty" at all in Sweden. Are you saying that our figures are incorrect - or that we are blind? Mislead? Liars?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
minimum wage
High Threshold;1456806 wrote: Excuse me? The quote is as follows; "no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty". Would you care to point out what part of what I wrote "doesn't follow"?
"no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty" does not mean "that it is OK for Americans to starve" any more than saying "No one should be forced to wear blue plaid" means that "everyone should go naked".
The statement "no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty" simply means that working for 40 hours per week should yield a paycheck adequate to live above the poverty level. It in no way implies anything about those not working for 40 hours a week. People living in poverty qualify for government assistance - always have, always will. Currently some people work full time (40 hours + per week) and yet still live in poverty. This is what the President referred to. Starvation is not okay, and the president never implied anything of the sort. To infer that he did is an illogical leap.
High Threshold;1456806 wrote: [QUOTE=Accountable;1456786][...] the only part of your post I addressed was what you said about minimum wage and unemployment benefits. [unemployment benefits ought to be at minimum wage - and minimum wage above that.] The statement is mathematically impossible.[...]
No it isn't. Our unemployment is on the rise yet we have no "poverty" at all in Sweden. Are you saying that our figures are incorrect - or that we are blind? Mislead? Liars?
Unemployment benefits CANNOT be at (meaning equal to) minimum wage AND the minimum wage simultaneously being above unemployment benefits.
A=B cannot equal B>A
It is mathematically impossible. The lack of poverty in Sweden is irrelevant to that. You have shown no figures at all, so their accuracy is irrelevant. Your vision is not in question, only your math skills. Also irrelevant is whether you have been misled.
"no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty" does not mean "that it is OK for Americans to starve" any more than saying "No one should be forced to wear blue plaid" means that "everyone should go naked".
The statement "no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty" simply means that working for 40 hours per week should yield a paycheck adequate to live above the poverty level. It in no way implies anything about those not working for 40 hours a week. People living in poverty qualify for government assistance - always have, always will. Currently some people work full time (40 hours + per week) and yet still live in poverty. This is what the President referred to. Starvation is not okay, and the president never implied anything of the sort. To infer that he did is an illogical leap.
High Threshold;1456806 wrote: [QUOTE=Accountable;1456786][...] the only part of your post I addressed was what you said about minimum wage and unemployment benefits. [unemployment benefits ought to be at minimum wage - and minimum wage above that.] The statement is mathematically impossible.[...]
No it isn't. Our unemployment is on the rise yet we have no "poverty" at all in Sweden. Are you saying that our figures are incorrect - or that we are blind? Mislead? Liars?
Unemployment benefits CANNOT be at (meaning equal to) minimum wage AND the minimum wage simultaneously being above unemployment benefits.
A=B cannot equal B>A
It is mathematically impossible. The lack of poverty in Sweden is irrelevant to that. You have shown no figures at all, so their accuracy is irrelevant. Your vision is not in question, only your math skills. Also irrelevant is whether you have been misled.
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
minimum wage
Accountable;1456862 wrote: "no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty" does not mean "that it is OK for Americans to starve"
Of course it does.
Accountable;1456862 wrote: It in no way implies anything about those not working for 40 hours a week.
What language do you speak?
Accountable;1456862 wrote: Unemployment benefits CANNOT be at (meaning equal to) minimum wage AND the minimum wage simultaneously being above unemployment benefits.
A=B cannot equal B>A
It is mathematically impossible.
You are not listening.
Accountable;1456862 wrote: The lack of poverty in Sweden is irrelevant to that.
It has evrything to do with it. It is proof that there is nothing wrong with my math and that poverty is avoidable.
Accountable;1456862 wrote: You have shown no figures at all, so their accuracy is irrelevant. Your vision is not in question, only your math skills. Also irrelevant is whether you have been misled.
It is unnecessary for me to provide any figures at this stage. In any case I feel certain that you already know I am correct.
Of course it does.
Accountable;1456862 wrote: It in no way implies anything about those not working for 40 hours a week.
What language do you speak?
Accountable;1456862 wrote: Unemployment benefits CANNOT be at (meaning equal to) minimum wage AND the minimum wage simultaneously being above unemployment benefits.
A=B cannot equal B>A
It is mathematically impossible.
You are not listening.
Accountable;1456862 wrote: The lack of poverty in Sweden is irrelevant to that.
It has evrything to do with it. It is proof that there is nothing wrong with my math and that poverty is avoidable.
Accountable;1456862 wrote: You have shown no figures at all, so their accuracy is irrelevant. Your vision is not in question, only your math skills. Also irrelevant is whether you have been misled.
It is unnecessary for me to provide any figures at this stage. In any case I feel certain that you already know I am correct.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
minimum wage
High Threshold;1456869 wrote: [QUOTE=High Threshold;1456806] Are you saying that our figures are incorrect
Accountable;1456862 wrote: You have shown no figures at all, so their accuracy is irrelevant.
It is unnecessary for me to provide any figures at this stage.
You accuse me of calling your figures incorrect, AND concede that you haven't shown them. Are you sane?
Accountable;1456862 wrote: You have shown no figures at all, so their accuracy is irrelevant.
It is unnecessary for me to provide any figures at this stage.
You accuse me of calling your figures incorrect, AND concede that you haven't shown them. Are you sane?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
minimum wage
High Threshold;1456869 wrote: What language do you speak?
English, as you damn well know, but I try to keep conversations such as this objective and apply logic to the statements. I'd appreciate it if you do the same.
English, as you damn well know, but I try to keep conversations such as this objective and apply logic to the statements. I'd appreciate it if you do the same.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
minimum wage
High Threshold;1456869 wrote: Of course it does.How?
High Threshold;1456869 wrote: You are not listening.Then explain. Accusing me of not listening is meaningless.
High Threshold;1456869 wrote: It [unemployment benefits ought to be at minimum wage - and minimum wage above that.] has evrything to do with it. It is proof that there is nothing wrong with my math and that poverty is avoidable. Minimum wage cannot be BOTH equal to unemployment benefits and above unemployment benefits. If you disagree, please explain.
High Threshold;1456869 wrote: You are not listening.Then explain. Accusing me of not listening is meaningless.
High Threshold;1456869 wrote: It [unemployment benefits ought to be at minimum wage - and minimum wage above that.] has evrything to do with it. It is proof that there is nothing wrong with my math and that poverty is avoidable. Minimum wage cannot be BOTH equal to unemployment benefits and above unemployment benefits. If you disagree, please explain.
minimum wage
Accountable;1456882 wrote:
Minimum wage cannot be BOTH equal to unemployment benefits and above unemployment benefits. If you disagree, please explain.
That was actually pretty clear to me. Of course I teach mathematics so that's not an objective opinion.
I've said lots of times being poor in America isn't so bad. We have cable TV.
Oh, and anyone who is starving should just hang out at the McDonald's dumpster. You should see the size of the alley cats around there.
Minimum wage cannot be BOTH equal to unemployment benefits and above unemployment benefits. If you disagree, please explain.
That was actually pretty clear to me. Of course I teach mathematics so that's not an objective opinion.
I've said lots of times being poor in America isn't so bad. We have cable TV.
Oh, and anyone who is starving should just hang out at the McDonald's dumpster. You should see the size of the alley cats around there.
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
minimum wage
Accountable;1456878 wrote: You accuse me of calling your figures incorrect, AND concede that you haven't shown them. Are you sane?
Check the definition of "accusation". You may be surprised.
Accountable;1456880 wrote: English, as you damn well know .....
Now it's me who's surprised.
Accountable;1456882 wrote: Minimum wage cannot be BOTH equal to unemployment benefits and above unemployment benefits.
What we have here is a failure to communicate.
The minimum wage fluctuates and is calculated to represent the cost of living, does it not? I mean it is not a "dollar figure" set in stone, although you seem to think that it is. Today the minimum wage is equal to "X". THAT (by my way of thinking) ought to be absolute minimun unemployment benefit. Anyone employed however ought to recieve more than that. Difficult, eh! Never mind ------ I studied maths in school.
Check the definition of "accusation". You may be surprised.
Accountable;1456880 wrote: English, as you damn well know .....
Now it's me who's surprised.
Accountable;1456882 wrote: Minimum wage cannot be BOTH equal to unemployment benefits and above unemployment benefits.
What we have here is a failure to communicate.
The minimum wage fluctuates and is calculated to represent the cost of living, does it not? I mean it is not a "dollar figure" set in stone, although you seem to think that it is. Today the minimum wage is equal to "X". THAT (by my way of thinking) ought to be absolute minimun unemployment benefit. Anyone employed however ought to recieve more than that. Difficult, eh! Never mind ------ I studied maths in school.
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
minimum wage
Accountable;1456706 wrote: Exactly. This is because the value of the dollar has tanked, relative to the international exchange system. So why aren't we trying to strengthen the dollar, thus lowering prices and increasing the buying power of Joe-citizen's paycheck? That's the better long-term solution, imo.
NO, there has been an avalanche of data churned out in recent years showing how wages have flatlined for most people, except for high income professionals. Back when I left home in 1975, I worked in a restaurant for 10c over minimum wage, and earned enough to split a decent two bedroom apartment with a friend....a year later he left, but I still had enough to afford a small bachelor apartment, buy food, go out on the weekend...the only thing I couldn't afford was a car...largely because of the insurance costs. But the point is back then you could have your own place and afford to live on a minimum wage job. Today, I doubt that is possible in any city.
Joe Citizen's problem isn't a declining U.S. Dollar; it's the trade deals and inflated Dollar value that have allowed Joe Sixpack's factory job to be sent to China! So, now he works 30 hours a week at McDonalds or Walmart...get real, these places never hire full time staff! They don't allow non-management workers to book more than 30 hours, so they remain part-timers with few rights and benefits.
Joe Sixpack is a casualty of Friedmanomics, which duped everyone into believing "a rising tide lifts all boats in the harbour." In reality, it was only those big yachts that rose...all of the little boats sank or are still busy bailing water!
The U.S. Dollar has remained high over the years thanks to it's status as international reserve currency...it's that empire thing again. So, U.S. consumers get more and more junk shipped across the Pacific and financed by the ever-growing trade deficit, but at the cost of a high dollar hollowing out the U.S. manufacturing base. The tax cuts and the outsourcing made possible through globalization agreements, have conspired to shrink and eventually end the middle class in America.
NO, there has been an avalanche of data churned out in recent years showing how wages have flatlined for most people, except for high income professionals. Back when I left home in 1975, I worked in a restaurant for 10c over minimum wage, and earned enough to split a decent two bedroom apartment with a friend....a year later he left, but I still had enough to afford a small bachelor apartment, buy food, go out on the weekend...the only thing I couldn't afford was a car...largely because of the insurance costs. But the point is back then you could have your own place and afford to live on a minimum wage job. Today, I doubt that is possible in any city.
Joe Citizen's problem isn't a declining U.S. Dollar; it's the trade deals and inflated Dollar value that have allowed Joe Sixpack's factory job to be sent to China! So, now he works 30 hours a week at McDonalds or Walmart...get real, these places never hire full time staff! They don't allow non-management workers to book more than 30 hours, so they remain part-timers with few rights and benefits.
Joe Sixpack is a casualty of Friedmanomics, which duped everyone into believing "a rising tide lifts all boats in the harbour." In reality, it was only those big yachts that rose...all of the little boats sank or are still busy bailing water!
The U.S. Dollar has remained high over the years thanks to it's status as international reserve currency...it's that empire thing again. So, U.S. consumers get more and more junk shipped across the Pacific and financed by the ever-growing trade deficit, but at the cost of a high dollar hollowing out the U.S. manufacturing base. The tax cuts and the outsourcing made possible through globalization agreements, have conspired to shrink and eventually end the middle class in America.
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
minimum wage
Accountable;1456768 wrote: Most money is electronic now. There's not a paper dollar representing every dollar in circulation.
No kidding! Last time I heard the numbers, at most there was 5% of total U.S. Dollars were in real money. You're missing the part about how it's not the Government who creates all of the e-money to begin with. It's the banks...working through the magic of fractional reserve banking policy, which allows them to write up new loans...creating money out of new debt obligations, while only being required to maintain a "fraction" of 3% assets in reserve to back up their outstanding loans. It's a system that can only function by constantly growing, and when it can longer provide new growth (phony derivatives don't count), the international banking and monetary systems will collapse. I don't know when that day will come...but it will come along eventually, because constant growth becomes impossible at some point in time.
Most new US dollars created goes to buy up US bonds. It's called monetizing the debt. That, and keeping interest rates artificially low has pumped tons of new dollars into circulation without having anything new of value to base it on. That, combined with our weak economy, are driving the dollar down, prices up.
Ya know, the Government could run this funny money scheme without having to pay interest to the banks! Lincoln did it back during the Civil War, when he created the Greenback to finance the military because the British stopped their banks from loaning money for his war effort. Right now with this quantitative easing thing, the Government is creating money loaned at 0% to the banks...who in turn just go for a quick fast buck by buying Treasury Bills, rather than doing any of this job creation we hear so much about.
No kidding! Last time I heard the numbers, at most there was 5% of total U.S. Dollars were in real money. You're missing the part about how it's not the Government who creates all of the e-money to begin with. It's the banks...working through the magic of fractional reserve banking policy, which allows them to write up new loans...creating money out of new debt obligations, while only being required to maintain a "fraction" of 3% assets in reserve to back up their outstanding loans. It's a system that can only function by constantly growing, and when it can longer provide new growth (phony derivatives don't count), the international banking and monetary systems will collapse. I don't know when that day will come...but it will come along eventually, because constant growth becomes impossible at some point in time.
Most new US dollars created goes to buy up US bonds. It's called monetizing the debt. That, and keeping interest rates artificially low has pumped tons of new dollars into circulation without having anything new of value to base it on. That, combined with our weak economy, are driving the dollar down, prices up.
Ya know, the Government could run this funny money scheme without having to pay interest to the banks! Lincoln did it back during the Civil War, when he created the Greenback to finance the military because the British stopped their banks from loaning money for his war effort. Right now with this quantitative easing thing, the Government is creating money loaned at 0% to the banks...who in turn just go for a quick fast buck by buying Treasury Bills, rather than doing any of this job creation we hear so much about.
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
minimum wage
FourPart;1456675 wrote: I see the minimum wage as being essential. Without it the very nature of business is to get their costs as low as possible, and with the unemployment situation as it is, there's never any shortage of someone to fill it, regardless of how exploitative the wage is.
Absolutely! The only way our economies could make a minimum wage unnecessary, is if unemployment is so low that the job market favours the worker over the employer. In most job markets the opposite is true. The employer holds all or most of the cards, because there are so many people chasing the few jobs available. In this kind of market, the floor can keep being lowered if there is no minimum wage to set a decent minimum standard for workers.
This doesn't only apply to unskilled jobs, such as burger flipping, though. It applies to people, such as myself who have gone through the hard work of further education to achieve all the qualifications we were told to be essential in life, and the years of experience - only to find that these White Collar jobs pay no more than a burger flipper.
Especially after adding on the cost of higher education that is going to leave most students as debt serfs for life! The collapse in incomes has affected many professions that were thought to be protected.
Then there are the hoards of illegal & legal EU immigrants who are always eager to take cash in hand, below minimum wage jobs, thus undercutting the legal, tax paying workers, while the Cash In Hand worker is actually better off than the legal Minimum Wage worker, as the Gross figure he receives is also his Net figure by not having the deductions for Tax & N.I. etc being taken.
I don't know much about Europe's situation, but the only way open borders and free trade could work is if the same standards of living are relatively close across all member nations. Southern and Eastern Europe additions to the E.U. provide the employer in Northern Europe with a stick to use against their workers when they demand more money and better working conditions.
The Industrial Revolution of the 1800s put thousands of workers onto the breadlines because it was cheaper to use the latest technology in the mills, rather than skilled workers. Things are no different now. The factories have robots & the offices have computers. With an ever increasing population & an ever decreasing demand for employees, the resulting outcome is obvious. Driving everyone to desperation to clutch at the straws of a few pennies here & there.
I have been reading a little on the history of the Industrial Revolution this last year, and the truth is exact opposite of the legacy image we have received that industrialization was resisted by idiots (luddites) who were denying progress in an effort to protect their antiquated craft industries. And then the I.R. got rolling and brought progress and modernization to England, Belgium, France, Germany and America......well, that's sort of how the myth of industrial progress goes, but the truth, as you mentioned, was that most were impoverished by the new industrial regimes that required little or no skills from the workers. The Luddites were craftsmen, while the factory workers were little more than automatons, who had to adapt to the pace of the machines surrounding them.
And just as the new industrial technologies didn't require skills or enrich the lives of factory workers back then, a lot of the new computerized technology makes the job easier, so unskilled people may be able to do the job for less money.
Absolutely! The only way our economies could make a minimum wage unnecessary, is if unemployment is so low that the job market favours the worker over the employer. In most job markets the opposite is true. The employer holds all or most of the cards, because there are so many people chasing the few jobs available. In this kind of market, the floor can keep being lowered if there is no minimum wage to set a decent minimum standard for workers.
This doesn't only apply to unskilled jobs, such as burger flipping, though. It applies to people, such as myself who have gone through the hard work of further education to achieve all the qualifications we were told to be essential in life, and the years of experience - only to find that these White Collar jobs pay no more than a burger flipper.
Especially after adding on the cost of higher education that is going to leave most students as debt serfs for life! The collapse in incomes has affected many professions that were thought to be protected.
Then there are the hoards of illegal & legal EU immigrants who are always eager to take cash in hand, below minimum wage jobs, thus undercutting the legal, tax paying workers, while the Cash In Hand worker is actually better off than the legal Minimum Wage worker, as the Gross figure he receives is also his Net figure by not having the deductions for Tax & N.I. etc being taken.
I don't know much about Europe's situation, but the only way open borders and free trade could work is if the same standards of living are relatively close across all member nations. Southern and Eastern Europe additions to the E.U. provide the employer in Northern Europe with a stick to use against their workers when they demand more money and better working conditions.
The Industrial Revolution of the 1800s put thousands of workers onto the breadlines because it was cheaper to use the latest technology in the mills, rather than skilled workers. Things are no different now. The factories have robots & the offices have computers. With an ever increasing population & an ever decreasing demand for employees, the resulting outcome is obvious. Driving everyone to desperation to clutch at the straws of a few pennies here & there.
I have been reading a little on the history of the Industrial Revolution this last year, and the truth is exact opposite of the legacy image we have received that industrialization was resisted by idiots (luddites) who were denying progress in an effort to protect their antiquated craft industries. And then the I.R. got rolling and brought progress and modernization to England, Belgium, France, Germany and America......well, that's sort of how the myth of industrial progress goes, but the truth, as you mentioned, was that most were impoverished by the new industrial regimes that required little or no skills from the workers. The Luddites were craftsmen, while the factory workers were little more than automatons, who had to adapt to the pace of the machines surrounding them.
And just as the new industrial technologies didn't require skills or enrich the lives of factory workers back then, a lot of the new computerized technology makes the job easier, so unskilled people may be able to do the job for less money.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
minimum wage
High Threshold;1456925 wrote: What we have here is a failure to communicate.Clearly
High Threshold;1456925 wrote: The minimum wage fluctuates and is calculated to represent the cost of living, does it not? I mean it is not a "dollar figure" set in stone, although you seem to think that it is. Today the minimum wage is equal to "X". THAT (by my way of thinking) ought to be absolute minimun unemployment benefit. Anyone employed however ought to recieve more than that. Difficult, eh! Never mind ------ I studied maths in school.
In the US, the minimum wage does not fluctuate. It is set at a specific wage per hour until legislation is passed to change it. Many have said we should install automatic adjustments for inflation, but no state does it, as far as I know. The federal rate is also static ($7.25 since 2009). If there must be a minimum wage (and I'm not convinced there must) then I definitely like your fluctuating system.
So let me see if I understand your phrasing. You are suggesting a change in unemployment benefits and minimum wage so that the unemployed benefit should match the current minimum wage, and the minimum wage should be raised above what it currently is. Do I understand you correctly?
High Threshold;1456925 wrote: The minimum wage fluctuates and is calculated to represent the cost of living, does it not? I mean it is not a "dollar figure" set in stone, although you seem to think that it is. Today the minimum wage is equal to "X". THAT (by my way of thinking) ought to be absolute minimun unemployment benefit. Anyone employed however ought to recieve more than that. Difficult, eh! Never mind ------ I studied maths in school.
In the US, the minimum wage does not fluctuate. It is set at a specific wage per hour until legislation is passed to change it. Many have said we should install automatic adjustments for inflation, but no state does it, as far as I know. The federal rate is also static ($7.25 since 2009). If there must be a minimum wage (and I'm not convinced there must) then I definitely like your fluctuating system.
So let me see if I understand your phrasing. You are suggesting a change in unemployment benefits and minimum wage so that the unemployed benefit should match the current minimum wage, and the minimum wage should be raised above what it currently is. Do I understand you correctly?
minimum wage
I'm divided on minimum wage. I worked for minimum for quite a bit of my life, all the way through high school and college (two colleges.) When I started minimum wage of 85 cents and hour. I was working at McDonalds. But even though my paycheck was dismal, that was enough for me to save up and buy my own car in one summer. (1969 Camaro for $1,000) Also gas was 62 cents a gallon and the movies were 75 cents. In college, my two bedroom duplex was only $400 dollars a month including utilities. With my roommate it was half that. Since tuition was $63 a credit hour, I had enough money to save up and pay for my own tuition and (used) books. I worked my way through college twice with no scholarships and no loans on minimum wage or slightly higher. That education, of course, was my gateway to real careers and real salaries.
I seriously doubt any of that is possible today.
So on the one hand, I see a tendency of young people want higher pay for work that is not worth that money, while at the same time disdaining reading and the skills that will eventually earn them more money. But on the other hand I see them as basically cut off from the ability to pull themselves up through that same hard work.
I seriously doubt any of that is possible today.
So on the one hand, I see a tendency of young people want higher pay for work that is not worth that money, while at the same time disdaining reading and the skills that will eventually earn them more money. But on the other hand I see them as basically cut off from the ability to pull themselves up through that same hard work.
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
minimum wage
Saint_;1456997 wrote: I'm divided on minimum wage. I worked for minimum for quite a bit of my life, all the way through high school and college (two colleges.) When I started minimum wage of 85 cents and hour. I was working at McDonalds. But even though my paycheck was dismal, that was enough for me to save up and buy my own car in one summer. (1969 Camaro for $1,000) Also gas was 62 cents a gallon and the movies were 75 cents. In college, my two bedroom duplex was only $400 dollars a month including utilities. With my roommate it was half that. Since tuition was $63 a credit hour, I had enough money to save up and pay for my own tuition and (used) books. I worked my way through college twice with no scholarships and no loans on minimum wage or slightly higher. That education, of course, was my gateway to real careers and real salaries.
I seriously doubt any of that is possible today.
So on the one hand, I see a tendency of young people want higher pay for work that is not worth that money, while at the same time disdaining reading and the skills that will eventually earn them more money. But on the other hand I see them as basically cut off from the ability to pull themselves up through that same hard work.
You have just inspired a more positvie look on McDonalds.
I seriously doubt any of that is possible today.
So on the one hand, I see a tendency of young people want higher pay for work that is not worth that money, while at the same time disdaining reading and the skills that will eventually earn them more money. But on the other hand I see them as basically cut off from the ability to pull themselves up through that same hard work.
You have just inspired a more positvie look on McDonalds.
-
Silvio Dante
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2014 12:16 am
minimum wage
Minimum wage is a moral and justified notion.
Workers have been exploited in many countries for many years.
Thankfully an enlightened view is taken in the EU...
Workers have been exploited in many countries for many years.
Thankfully an enlightened view is taken in the EU...
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
minimum wage
Silvio Dante;1458065 wrote: Minimum wage is a moral and justified notion.
Workers have been exploited in many countries for many years.
Thankfully an enlightened view is taken in the EU...
Absolutely. :-6
Workers have been exploited in many countries for many years.
Thankfully an enlightened view is taken in the EU...
Absolutely. :-6
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
minimum wage
What's the EU rule?
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
minimum wage
Saint_;1456997 wrote: I'm divided on minimum wage. I worked for minimum for quite a bit of my life, all the way through high school and college (two colleges.) When I started minimum wage of 85 cents and hour. I was working at McDonalds. But even though my paycheck was dismal, that was enough for me to save up and buy my own car in one summer. (1969 Camaro for $1,000) Also gas was 62 cents a gallon and the movies were 75 cents. In college, my two bedroom duplex was only $400 dollars a month including utilities. With my roommate it was half that. Since tuition was $63 a credit hour, I had enough money to save up and pay for my own tuition and (used) books. I worked my way through college twice with no scholarships and no loans on minimum wage or slightly higher. That education, of course, was my gateway to real careers and real salaries.
I seriously doubt any of that is possible today.
So on the one hand, I see a tendency of young people want higher pay for work that is not worth that money, while at the same time disdaining reading and the skills that will eventually earn them more money. But on the other hand I see them as basically cut off from the ability to pull themselves up through that same hard work.
We have to put our personal growing-up experiences in the proper overall context: we both grew up in North America during a time when energy (namely oil) was still abundant, other crucial non-renewable resources were still cheap (this is the big, glaring omission that nearly all lamenters of economic malaise totally miss!) and cheap - therefore powering the continuous economic expansion required to absorb more and more debt (money).
So, damn-straight that today's youth, by and large, cannot expect that their own efforts will lead to success unless they are either exceptionally talented or exceptionally lucky! What about the population as a whole? Things were alot easier for us back then...even for those like me who just wanted to get out there and earn a living, rather than invest in that higher education. But, is voting for a raise in minimum wage going to be anything more than a temporary fix on a system that is accumulating wealth into fewer and fewer hands, and driving more and more people deeper into poverty?
French economist - Thomas Picketty has become the celebrity-of-the-moment for providing the statistical evidence to prove the obvious: economies based on debt accumulation and inflating money supplies, allow the rentier class, who hold most of the capital, to use the virtual economy of money accumulation to buy increasing amounts of the real tangible assets of the real economy, and voila: those trust fund babies and other assorted vegetables and nitwits, whose only real talent is the ability to hire honest and competent investment managers, end up being the ones who grow in wealth, while virtually everyone else....especially wage-earners, grow poorer! The further down the income ladder you are/the faster you are spiraling down into poverty. And it's virtually the same story all over the world, because capitalist industrial civilization that by its very nature, is dependent on continuous growth - has already harvested the cheap raw materials provided by nature, and in increasingly desperate and ruthless struggles to extract the rest of the NNR's to keep our present system functioning.
The reason why I like to provide a brief synopsis reminding everyone I talk to about the hard facts of what's behind all of the overly complicated varieties of economic theory is because neither macroeconomics nor economics at the personal level, ever notices or mentions these crucial building blocks of economics. Economists of all stripes live and theorize in a magical world where none of these things matter, and success or failure of economic theory is all based on their artificial economic models.
Without looking at that overall picture, there is no way to put the "when I was young" stories in proper context for young people today. Because today's under 40's have come of age when the balloon could no longer keep inflating, whether the gods of economic theory proposed liberal modified capitalism or the straight, unadulterated savage market capitalism proposed by the Neoliberals!
So, on the issue of whether a minimum wage is a good thing/or a bad thing, the market worshipers are totally out to lunch, because market forces over the last 30 years of globalization have only succeeded at destroying the supports and modifications that the Keynsians put in place after the Great Depression of the 30's - like the minimum wage, universal free/or nearly free public education, free health care, publicly managed utilities for the common good etc. etc. etc.
The minimum wage is an essential to prevent employers from extracting even more value of the labour provided by workers, but it shouldn't be seen as more than a bandaid fix or stopgap measure....like present day liberal economists and policymakers present it. At some point (presumably before extinction of the human race), the increasing extraction from nature has to come to an end! Because of over-extraction, the end result (and the one that leads to population crashes of other species) is a smaller carrying capacity left to support still-growing human populations. And, I didn't even have the chance yet to mention the impacts of ecosystem degradation and global warming on reducing carrying capacity!
It has to all end at some point, and that is not going to happen unless people start thinking beyond these little temporary fixes and ask hard questions like: is it possible to divy up available resources in a sustainable manner that will provide the necessities of life for everyone? So, if any economic theorists can draft a plan to save this little lifeboat and keep most people happy....needless to say that all bets are off once the fight for what's left goes nuclear....then I'd like to hear about it!
I seriously doubt any of that is possible today.
So on the one hand, I see a tendency of young people want higher pay for work that is not worth that money, while at the same time disdaining reading and the skills that will eventually earn them more money. But on the other hand I see them as basically cut off from the ability to pull themselves up through that same hard work.
We have to put our personal growing-up experiences in the proper overall context: we both grew up in North America during a time when energy (namely oil) was still abundant, other crucial non-renewable resources were still cheap (this is the big, glaring omission that nearly all lamenters of economic malaise totally miss!) and cheap - therefore powering the continuous economic expansion required to absorb more and more debt (money).
So, damn-straight that today's youth, by and large, cannot expect that their own efforts will lead to success unless they are either exceptionally talented or exceptionally lucky! What about the population as a whole? Things were alot easier for us back then...even for those like me who just wanted to get out there and earn a living, rather than invest in that higher education. But, is voting for a raise in minimum wage going to be anything more than a temporary fix on a system that is accumulating wealth into fewer and fewer hands, and driving more and more people deeper into poverty?
French economist - Thomas Picketty has become the celebrity-of-the-moment for providing the statistical evidence to prove the obvious: economies based on debt accumulation and inflating money supplies, allow the rentier class, who hold most of the capital, to use the virtual economy of money accumulation to buy increasing amounts of the real tangible assets of the real economy, and voila: those trust fund babies and other assorted vegetables and nitwits, whose only real talent is the ability to hire honest and competent investment managers, end up being the ones who grow in wealth, while virtually everyone else....especially wage-earners, grow poorer! The further down the income ladder you are/the faster you are spiraling down into poverty. And it's virtually the same story all over the world, because capitalist industrial civilization that by its very nature, is dependent on continuous growth - has already harvested the cheap raw materials provided by nature, and in increasingly desperate and ruthless struggles to extract the rest of the NNR's to keep our present system functioning.
The reason why I like to provide a brief synopsis reminding everyone I talk to about the hard facts of what's behind all of the overly complicated varieties of economic theory is because neither macroeconomics nor economics at the personal level, ever notices or mentions these crucial building blocks of economics. Economists of all stripes live and theorize in a magical world where none of these things matter, and success or failure of economic theory is all based on their artificial economic models.
Without looking at that overall picture, there is no way to put the "when I was young" stories in proper context for young people today. Because today's under 40's have come of age when the balloon could no longer keep inflating, whether the gods of economic theory proposed liberal modified capitalism or the straight, unadulterated savage market capitalism proposed by the Neoliberals!
So, on the issue of whether a minimum wage is a good thing/or a bad thing, the market worshipers are totally out to lunch, because market forces over the last 30 years of globalization have only succeeded at destroying the supports and modifications that the Keynsians put in place after the Great Depression of the 30's - like the minimum wage, universal free/or nearly free public education, free health care, publicly managed utilities for the common good etc. etc. etc.
The minimum wage is an essential to prevent employers from extracting even more value of the labour provided by workers, but it shouldn't be seen as more than a bandaid fix or stopgap measure....like present day liberal economists and policymakers present it. At some point (presumably before extinction of the human race), the increasing extraction from nature has to come to an end! Because of over-extraction, the end result (and the one that leads to population crashes of other species) is a smaller carrying capacity left to support still-growing human populations. And, I didn't even have the chance yet to mention the impacts of ecosystem degradation and global warming on reducing carrying capacity!
It has to all end at some point, and that is not going to happen unless people start thinking beyond these little temporary fixes and ask hard questions like: is it possible to divy up available resources in a sustainable manner that will provide the necessities of life for everyone? So, if any economic theorists can draft a plan to save this little lifeboat and keep most people happy....needless to say that all bets are off once the fight for what's left goes nuclear....then I'd like to hear about it!
minimum wage
I am a direct descendant of James Brine, one of the Tolpuddle Martyrs (the first ever Trade Union) who was deported to Australia for his part in inciting other workers to stand up for their rights instead of simply allowing themselves to be exploited by their Lords & Masters of the upper echelon.
Nothing much has changed since those days. The rich continue to get richer by way of the exploitation of the poor, and just as it has always been, the Tories, who are primarily members of this echelon, are bound to support their own kind, scratching each others' backs.
If they could get away with it, the wage offered would be as low as they could possibly get it, so long as there was always someone desperate enough to do it.
Even now, there are thousands of immigrants, both legal & illegal who work at far less than Minimum Wage, but because it's all paid cash in hand (as illegal payment rates could not be put on the books), they don't pay Tax or National Insurance, meaning that their Gross income is also their Net income, which often means that they're on a higher income than legitimate workers who pay their way.
The point is that while there is someone who is willing to be exploited, there will always be someone who's greedy enough to exploit them - and what's worse is that with the unemployment situation as it is, supply (of workers) surpasses the demand by far, meaning that the employers can cherry pick to get the most for the least.
Of course there is also the down side to the Minimum Wage, inasmuch as in order to cover their costs, businesses raise their prices, thus increasing the cost of living, thus requiring a higher Minimum Wage - and so the spiral of constant inflation continues.
Nothing much has changed since those days. The rich continue to get richer by way of the exploitation of the poor, and just as it has always been, the Tories, who are primarily members of this echelon, are bound to support their own kind, scratching each others' backs.
If they could get away with it, the wage offered would be as low as they could possibly get it, so long as there was always someone desperate enough to do it.
Even now, there are thousands of immigrants, both legal & illegal who work at far less than Minimum Wage, but because it's all paid cash in hand (as illegal payment rates could not be put on the books), they don't pay Tax or National Insurance, meaning that their Gross income is also their Net income, which often means that they're on a higher income than legitimate workers who pay their way.
The point is that while there is someone who is willing to be exploited, there will always be someone who's greedy enough to exploit them - and what's worse is that with the unemployment situation as it is, supply (of workers) surpasses the demand by far, meaning that the employers can cherry pick to get the most for the least.
Of course there is also the down side to the Minimum Wage, inasmuch as in order to cover their costs, businesses raise their prices, thus increasing the cost of living, thus requiring a higher Minimum Wage - and so the spiral of constant inflation continues.