Bold increases in the minimum wage

[Lafayette]

You do not teach economics. Nor do you have any education in economics that is evident.
You don't even understand basic concepts.

that much is clear for anyone to see.

Yeah i know how they work as well. I have been over there i have asked about it.
You see it's only free if you make the test scores to get in. Not just anyone can get in free.

Blah, blah, blah.

Go find a Message Board ...

 

[Neomalthusian]

THE CHANGE OF AGES



When a nation has been able to close its collective eyes to a Poverty Threshold that incarcerates 14% of it population into abject destitution, then something is dreadfully wrong with its national mentality.

That lack of concern for the truly poor seems endemic to the American mindset, which glorifies Great Riches. We seem to think simplistically that "if you try real hard you can make it". Make what? More than the Poverty-Threshold of $25K for a family of four? B.F.D - note here that 45 million people in the US live below the PT! That's the combined population of California and Maryland!

WHAT MUST THE COUNTRY DO?

The poverty-threshold salary of $25K per year is (do the maths) is equivalent to $12 an hour, whereas the Minimum Wage (MW) in the US is $7.25/hr.

For starters, at the very least, the MW should be raised to $12/hr - the Poverty Threshold wage. We'll see about the rest (up to $15/hr) once we get there and the definitive proof (of too much too soon) will be whether or not that hourly MW creates inflation. It will create price-inflation somewhat - because Consumers will be paying higher unit prices for the production of labor-intensive goods/services.

But also, with the Demand for labor increasing, then a very large portion of the 14% of our population below the Poverty Threshold will benefit by getting/holding a job that returns a higher salary. Lo and behold, what will they do with that augmentation? They will SPEND ALMOST ALL OF IT! WOW!

Thus boosting Consumption and likely even more hiring. Marginal low-salary jobs will become amazingly "acceptable" to certain quarters of the economy. People will get hired. And come the next downturn, yes, they will be first to get fired. Which means what?

TWO FACTS-OF-LIVING IN AMERICA'S INFORMATION-AGE

*We must assure ourselves that all means necessary are undertaken to get minimum-wage people into higher-paying jobs by means of better education. Why? Because wherever possible automation will be a threat to their work! Very likely at some point in their lives without proper job-qualifications they are going to be "downsized" into below the Poverty Threshold!
*So we need absolutely a Federal program that subsidizes post-graduate education for the poorest. Either that, or they continue to show-up at the DoD recruiting agencies on Main Street that promises them an Education Subsidy IF THEY SURVIVE MILITARY SERVICE!
*Those are the sad-facts of life today in the "Greatest Nation on Earth".

WHYZZAT?

Because we, the sheeple, are enduring an unavoidable historical event that has happened already twice in the history of mankind. It is called the Change of Ages.

For more than three-thousand years, the world as humans know it has been in the Agricultural Age. But, in the 19th century, we advanced into the Industrial Age that took people off the farms and put them into manufacturing buildings (to which they rushed because the income was higher).

We are now in a third-phase of evolution, called the Information Age where the nature of our market-economy is more Services oriented than Manufacturing. Already, barely 12.6% of the American workforce is located in Goods Producing Industries. (See that fact corroborated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics here.)

Wakey, wakey ...

That was a whole lot of rambling, zero of which addressed my comment, which is that $15 is an arbitrary amount that, from a logical/rational standpoint, makes no particular sense to fixate on. The reason why $15 keeps getting brought up is because it's 1) a slogan for a union-backed campaign and 2) it needs to be that high to excite as many people as possible.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Yes, and so what?

It was a comment as much in support of a basic minimum income as it was against it. We can't say it definitively doesn't work when there's no data. We probably can't say it definitively will work either. Other than a few "thinkers" everywhere that have decided a basic income guarantee is where it's at, leaders and voters in even the countries where it might be especially worth a try seem very nervous about actually doing it.

I was also reminding folks that some of these basic income concepts involve considerable consolidation of our currently disorganized panoply of separate individual types of assistance. In a way we already all pay for dozens of separate component alternatives to basic income.

 

[danielpalos]

Haven't they already stationed themselves at the border?

A lot of people seem to think the economy is relatively stable and getting better, I believe we are just around the corner from a serious collapse.

Just like they have let the infrastructure go to hell, so the economic fundamentals have been let go with only temporary props put in place to forestall the real pain coming.

Check east coast yacht sales and the Cayman Island property market for the real heads-up.

So I believe infrastructure and many other issues are going to be swept aside and will be even further down the priority list than they are now.

Thx

Why are they at the border and not better ensuring the security of our free States regarding mass shootings?

 

[danielpalos]

That was a whole lot of rambling, zero of which addressed my comment, which is that $15 is an arbitrary amount that, from a logical/rational standpoint, makes no particular sense to fixate on. The reason why $15 keeps getting brought up is because it's 1) a slogan for a union-backed campaign and 2) it needs to be that high to excite as many people as possible.

No, it isn't. A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage competes with the fourteen dollar an hour equivalent cost in social services; under our form of Capitalism.

 

[Neomalthusian]

No, it isn't. A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage competes with the fourteen dollar an hour equivalent cost in social services; under our form of Capitalism.

Completely incoherent and unintelligible and, again, fails to comprehend the point being made before clicking 'Reply With Quote.'

 

[danielpalos]

Completely incoherent and unintelligible and, again, fails to comprehend the point being made before clicking 'Reply With Quote.'

lol. simply claiming that is a fallacy, unless you have an argument that supports your currently unsubstantiated opinion. What part of my argument is too complicated for You to understand? Just ask.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage competes with the fourteen dollar an hour equivalent cost in social services; under our form of Capitalism.

or, do you cede the point and the argument by simply experiencing a market failure in this, "argumentative market."

 

[imagep]

2019 will be the year to get out of stock, inflation will be a killer.

Why is inflation going to be a killer? And why would you want to get out of stock? Wouldn't you expect stock prices to inflate also? What would you invest in if not stocks? Gold?

 

[Neomalthusian]

lol. simply claiming that is a fallacy, unless you have an argument that supports your currently unsubstantiated opinion. What part of my argument is too complicated for You to understand? Just ask.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage competes with the fourteen dollar an hour equivalent cost in social services; under our form of Capitalism.

or, do you cede the point and the argument by simply experiencing a market failure in this, "argumentative market."

You’re not actually saying anything, and you have yet to acknowledge anything you’ve actually quoted. You just click Reply with Quote and then let loose with some unrelated prattle. The arbitrary $15 is part of a campaign. It’s a slogan. It has nothing to do with intelligent policy.

 

[danielpalos]

You’re not actually saying anything, and you have yet to acknowledge anything you’ve actually quoted. You just click Reply with Quote and then let loose with some unrelated prattle. The arbitrary $15 is part of a campaign. It’s a slogan. It has nothing to do with intelligent policy.

lol. thank you for ceding the point and the argument by having nothing but fallacy for rebuttal, instead of Any form of valid argument.

 

[Neomalthusian]

lol. thank you for ceding the point and the argument by having nothing but fallacy for rebuttal, instead of Any form of valid argument.

This too is incoherent babble. You have yet to actually say anything. Just noises and grunts.

 

[danielpalos]

This too is incoherent babble.

lol. nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics, ethics, law, morals, or politics.

 

[Lafayette]

It was a comment as much in support of a basic minimum income as it was against it. We can't say it definitively doesn't work when there's no data. We probably can't say it definitively will work either. Other than a few "thinkers" everywhere that have decided a basic income guarantee is where it's at, leaders and voters in even the countries where it might be especially worth a try seem very nervous about actually doing it.

Agreed. So, after Finland, let's see what the other countries that will undertake the same experiment find as a result.

The problem is that Finland is Finland and not the EU. Therefore what happens there or any other country is not relative to the US, which is much greater in terms of GDP and economic construct.

Meaning this: A guaranteed wage if it were instrumented in either the EU or the US entirely would likely work.

The US should try it and see ...

I was also reminding folks that some of these basic income concepts involve considerable consolidation of our currently disorganized panoply of separate individual types of assistance. In a way we already all pay for dozens of separate component alternatives to basic income.

They would be done away with ipso-facto once the law instituting Guaranteed Basic income were applied. They would no longer have any use - and the people necessary to run them would be released into the general market-place for jobs (where they are badly needed presently) ...

 

[Lafayette]

That was a whole lot of rambling, zero of which addressed my comment, which is that $15 is an arbitrary amount that, from a logical/rational standpoint, makes no particular sense to fixate on. The reason why $15 keeps getting brought up is because it's 1) a slogan for a union-backed campaign and 2) it needs to be that high to excite as many people as possible.

What the hell makes you think that you can judge whether I "play YOUR game".

This is a debate-forum, learn that fact. Debates take you where they go. And if you don't like the road, you don't go down it.

My commentary is factual and often backed by relevant data. If you don't like the content, then that's really your problem, not mine ...

 

[csbrown28]

A standard DD store by me has 25 employees working directly on the sales floor, then you have delivery drivers, cleaning staff, and host of bakers/fryers that work at around $10 per hour who will all need to get a raise, and you don't think that will increase costs 25%, how about the added cost of supplies because the company that supplies the flour, oil, cups, bags, napkins, fuel, etc all have to now pay more for staffing.

Your anecdotal claims aside, I think the info I already provided to you speaks for itself.

Think about how the price of gasoline, which affects the price of everything, tripled from 2001 to 2007. The increase in costs was lower than a $7.50 increase in MW, the cost of gas effects more. Yet we didn't see the massive increase in costs that you predict. Furthermore, when you pay people more money as opposed to spending it on other costs, people, in turn, spend more on G&s which in turn acts ot help offset inflationary pressure.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Agreed. So, after Finland, let's see what the other countries that will undertake the same experiment find as a result.

The problem is that Finland is Finland and not the EU. Therefore what happens there or any other country is not relative to the US, which is much greater in terms of GDP and economic construct.

Meaning this: A guaranteed wage if it were instrumented in either the EU or the US entirely would likely work.

The US should try it and see ...

Hasty, simplistic conclusions there. Maybe it would. But how would it be implemented? What tax increases would accompany it? What types of other public assistance would it replace? Hundreds of other complicated questions relate to this idea. No reason not to explore and talk through them. I think it will increasingly be looked at and talked about over time.

They would be done away with ipso-facto once the law instituting Guaranteed Basic income were applied. They would no longer have any use - and the people necessary to run them would be released into the general market-place for jobs (where they are badly needed presently) ...

Also very hasty. Some forms of public assistance concern health care. Presumably a guaranteed basic income wouldn't replace that, because people would spend all their money and then when they need health care they'd cry for more. So it can't replace health care. What about housing assistance? Some people feel entitled to live in a particular spot, including very high-priced places. Should separate programs providing housing assistance remain to subsidize people choosing to live in high-cost places? Or should they get their guaranteed income and if it's not enough to live where they want then they have to move? What if some people spend their basic income on things other than food and then complain they're starving? Do we continue to feed them? The idea of a basic guaranteed income replacing public assistance makes a lot of sense from a policy standpoint but then you have to answer some difficult questions about how much to neglect people who spend it stupidly with the idea that it's their fault they squandered their government income, or continue taking care of them in which case it's just more money on top of our already overly complicated litany of separately administered assistance programs.

 

[Neomalthusian]

What the hell makes you think that you can judge whether I "play YOUR game".

This is a debate-forum, learn that fact. Debates take you where they go. And if you don't like the road, you don't go down it.

My commentary is factual and often backed by relevant data. If you don't like the content, then that's really your problem, not mine ...

It is a debate forum, and effective debate at least acknowledges the point being responded to. I made a point and you quoted it but then went off in some altogether different direction.

The point, one more time, is that the $15 slogan isn't based on any sincere attempts to formulate good policy. For example, let's say a serious and workable proposal is to increase the federal minimum wage to $9.00. That's a 24% increase to the federal minimum. Should be seen as at least a partial victory to any minimum wage advocate. So why isn't this advocated?

Because those types of increases don't generate agitation and excitement from anyone in any of the darker blue states below:

In other words, people in states that tend to be in favor of raising minimum wages won't care about this because they already have higher minimum wages, and the people in the states that would be affected tend to be opposed to it. So even though more modest and gradual minimum wage increases would be better policy and more achievable, to the people behind this $15 propaganda, it's not about good policy. It's about agitating people. It's about inflaming people's sense of injustice to make them think they're being treated unfairly, no matter what state or city they actually live in, and no matter what the actual minimum wage already is where they live.

 

[Lafayette]

It is a debate forum, and effective debate at least acknowledges the point being responded to. I made a point and you quoted it but then went off in some altogether different direction.

Oh, dear me, dear me, dear me. So solly!

Childish sarcasm ...

So even though more modest and gradual minimum wage increases would be better policy and more achievable, to the people behind this $15 propaganda

States have no rights as regards the Minimum Wage.

Congress does. So, all we need is a Dem Congress.

I would not care to be waiting till then. I live in a country where the MW is twice that of the US, and anybody who works makes a decent living.

 

[Lafayette]

Hasty, simplistic conclusions there. Maybe it would. But how would it be implemented? What tax increases would accompany it? What types of other public assistance would it replace? Hundreds of other complicated questions relate to this idea. No reason not to explore and talk through them. I think it will increasingly be looked at and talked about over time..

You are making a mountain out of a mole-hill.

There is no need to raise taxes because most government revenue in Europe does not come from Income Taxation but from Value Added Sales Tax.

Which is another good idea for the US! Instead of the array of sales taxation rates across the states. This would relieve the states from the burden of collecting the tax as well as the idiocy of state-competition in local tax rates.

The states could then given back a certain percentage of the collected Value-Added-Tax on all sales ...

PS: Good pro&con presentation here on the Value Added Tax. I find the drawbacks mentioned of no great significance whatsoever.

 

[Neomalthusian]

States have no rights as regards the Minimum Wage.

Congress does. So, all we need is a Dem Congress.

Strange and incorrect thing to say, especially in response to a post that included a map showing varying minimum wages by state.

 

[danielpalos]

Bold increases in the minimum wage can be offset through tax breaks for capitalists. There is no reason Labor should have to wait for their new minimum fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

 

[Neomalthusian]

You are making a mountain out of a mole-hill.

There is no need to raise taxes because most government revenue in Europe does not come from Income Taxation but from Value Added Sales Tax.

I'm not talking about Europe and it doesn't matter to me what type of tax a country chooses. Point is most of the serious proposals I've seen for guaranteed income involve tax increases, mainly as a counter-inflationary measure.

Which is another good idea for the US! Instead of the array of sales taxation rates across the states. This would relieve the states from the burden of collecting the tax as well as the idiocy of state-competition in local tax rates.

The states could then given back a certain percentage of the collected Value-Added-Tax on all sales ...

PS: Good pro&con presentation here on the Value Added Tax. I find the drawbacks mentioned of no great significance whatsoever.

VATs are regressive.

 

[Lafayette]

The fact is when you push the floor all you do is create a new floor.

And if that new floor is above the Poverty Threshold then people live better and longer. But, I don't expect you to understand such a "complicated" notion.[/quote]

In fact I posted an article in here already that shows 15 and hour doesn't cut it.
People are driving 2 hours to work in CA because they can't afford the house any closer.

You're article was a fallacy. The sheer weight of its simplicity shows that raising the Minimum Wage to about where it is in most of the developed world is a damn fine idea. (And housing-costs are irrelevant in a matter of national trans-state importance to the economy.)

They have robots that can now make flip and prep burgers. If it costs me 40k to put won in I will do it if I have to pay people 15 an hour. Why? It makes 0 sense to pay them $15.

Your ignorance of the economic facts-of-work is showing. Again.

If the poverty-threshold in the US is $12 an hour, then how can $15/hour make no sense? It takes Median-Wage workers out of abject poverty by increasing their purchasing-power. And the effect on job-availability is virtually non-existent in the present economy, which is burgeoning.

The sole effect upon the economy will be that higher wages amongst the poor will increase slightly the manpower costs of the jobs in which they work. That level of "cost" is piddling - your BigMac will cost you 25-cents more ...

 

[Lafayette]

I'm not talking about Europe and it doesn't matter to me what type of tax a country chooses. Point is most of the serious proposals I've seen for guaranteed income involve tax increases, mainly as a counter-inflationary measure.



VATs are regressive.

One-liner blather of no substantiated argument. ALL taxes are "regressive". So what? (You want the snow-removed in winter, or not?!?)

M r a ...

 

[Lafayette]

Strange and incorrect thing to say, especially in response to a post that included a map showing varying minimum wages by state.

Yes, that's why I said it.

It is incongruous that a nation of 320 million people having Minimum Wages of all kinds. But, then, the same problem exists in Europe. (Italy has no minimum-wage!)

Europe will get around to fixing it. The US wont ...