Can Anyone Define What a "Living Wage" is to me?

[AlabamaPaul]

You can't possibly gauge "living wage" because the higher you raise the pay floor, the more you impact macroeconomic costs. If people suddenly were paid a "living wage" of 20 bucks an hour like you suggested, the cost of products that rely on low-wage employees at any link of the chain will increase. Milk would be 10 bucks a gallon and bread would be 5 dollars a loaf. This would cause people to clamor for an even higher wage, at which point costs would go even higher.

You'd think after watching the hyperinflation of places like Chile in the early 70s and any eastern Europe nations in the 80s, people wouldn't be fooled into thinking that monetary manipulation suddenly solves the problem. To create a "liveable wage" would make money not worth the paper it's printed on.

Injecting logic into this type of debate is usually discouraged... :doh

 

[Gipper]

Injecting logic into this type of debate is usually discouraged... :doh

Haha...well I try. That's why I said that "living wage" is a term usually used and encouraged by people with absolutely no knowledge of economics whatsoever (socialists, ultra-progressives, Marxists, etc.).

 

[imagep]

You can't possibly gauge "living wage" because the higher you raise the pay floor, the more you impact macroeconomic costs. If people suddenly were paid a "living wage" of 20 bucks an hour like you suggested, the cost of products that rely on low-wage employees at any link of the chain will increase. Milk would be 10 bucks a gallon and bread would be 5 dollars a loaf. This would cause people to clamor for an even higher wage, at which point costs would go even higher.

You'd think after watching the hyperinflation of places like Chile in the early 70s and any eastern Europe nations in the 80s, people wouldn't be fooled into thinking that monetary manipulation suddenly solves the problem. To create a "liveable wage" would make money not worth the paper it's printed on.

That would be true, but only if the rich continue getting richer. What I am saying is that if we had less income disparity between the median income and the top 1%, it's already mathematically possible for the majority of workers in the US to live at far above the living wage standard that I setforth.

I'm not suggesting that everyone should be paid the same wage or income, just that maybe we should return to the income distribution ratio that we had during the 1970's, when the median income peaked.

 

[imagep]

Injecting logic into this type of debate is usually discouraged... :doh

Yea, I think thats why he injected right wing rhetoric instead of logic.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

That would be true, but only if the rich continue getting richer. What I am saying is that if we had less income disparity between the median income and the top 1%, it's already mathematically possible for the majority of workers in the US to live at far above the living wage standard that I setforth.

I'm not suggesting that everyone should be paid the same wage or income, just that maybe we should return to the income distribution ratio that we had during the 1970's, when the median income peaked.

So, how much should one be allowed to earn in the new USA?

 

[imagep]

Haha...well I try. That's why I said that "living wage" is a term usually used and encouraged by people with absolutely no knowledge of economics whatsoever (socialists, ultra-progressives, Marxists, etc.).

Would you feel any better if those socialist and ultra-progressive used the term "middle class income" instead?

Sounds to me that you just have an issue with the terminology, not with the concept behind it.

 

[imagep]

So, how much should one be allowed to earn in the new USA?

Certainly as much as you can.

However, income distribution can be effected by many things, such as minimum wage and tax policy.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

Certainly as much as you can.

However, income distribution can be effected by many things, such as minimum wage and tax policy.

Until there are more productive jobs created for those with less marketable skills, you're only seeking income redistribution and capping earnings through through tax policy...

 

[Gipper]

That would be true, but only if the rich continue getting richer. What I am saying is that if we had less income disparity between the median income and the top 1%, it's already mathematically possible for the majority of workers in the US to live at far above the living wage standard that I setforth.

I'm not suggesting that everyone should be paid the same wage or income, just that maybe we should return to the income distribution ratio that we had during the 1970's, when the median income peaked.

The problem is that wealth disparity, in and of itself, is not wrong or evil. Nobody with an economic background will say or even suggest that wealth is zero-sum. The "rich getting richer" is not a significant factor in the comfort level of the lower/middle class. In fact, the rich getting richer actually improves overall conditions on every level, as much of it is a result of scientific and technological breakthroughs and advancements. That rising tide lifts all boats.

Median income is really a poor measure of quality of life. If anything, overall national wealth started to boom around the time Nixon took America off the gold standard. While the wealth consolidated at the top for the most part, it's easy to see that it created a blanket effect of spillover benefits with regard to improvement of life and overall progression.

 

[Gipper]

Would you feel any better if those socialist and ultra-progressive used the term "middle class income" instead?

Sounds to me that you just have an issue with the terminology, not with the concept behind it.

They wouldn't use the term because they'd strive to eliminate the existence of "classes". That's basic Marxist theory right there. The problem is that Marxists know bupkus about valuation and human differentiation.

 

[imagep]

Until there are more productive jobs created for those with less marketable skills, you're only seeking income redistribution and capping earnings through through tax policy...

Not necessarally. Our economy isn't a zero sum game.

If we shifted tax burden from those with the highest propensity to spend, to those with a lower propensity to spend, we would create more demand. When demand increases, businesses seek to fill that demand, thus they expand, and create more jobs. When more people are able to find jobs, then we produce more, and EVERYONE can become richer.

I thought that you understood economics. Guess I was wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.

 

[imagep]

The problem is that wealth disparity, in and of itself, is not wrong or evil. Nobody with an economic background will say or even suggest that wealth is zero-sum. The "rich getting richer" is not a significant factor in the comfort level of the lower/middle class. In fact, the rich getting richer actually improves overall conditions on every level, as much of it is a result of scientific and technological breakthroughs and advancements.

I agree with that, and thats part of my point. We can all get richer, if we have the right policies.

That rising tide lifts all boats.

A rising tide lifts all boats at the same rate. Doesn't matter if it is a childs floaty toy, or an oceanliner. Income distribution in the US worked pretty much like that during the middle of the 20th century, when we were having our best growth. Take a look at what the top tax rates were back then.

Median income is really a poor measure of quality of life. If anything, overall national wealth started to boom around the time Nixon took America off the gold standard. While the wealth consolidated at the top for the most part, it's easy to see that it created a blanket effect of spillover benefits with regard to improvement of life and overall progression.

Since the 1970's, the median income has been flat, while the income of the top 1% has skyrocketed.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

Not necessarally. Our economy isn't a zero sum game.

If we shifted tax burden from those with the highest propensity to spend, to those with a lower propensity to spend, we would create more demand. When demand increases, businesses seek to fill that demand, thus they expand, and create more jobs. When more people are able to find jobs, then we produce more, and EVERYONE can become richer.

I thought that you understood economics. Guess I was wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.

How much current income tax burden is there on the bottom 50% of income earners? To ignore the need for adequate employment is an like an ostrich with its head up his own ass. You cannot solve economic issues by giving out resources for non-productive activities...

 

[Gipper]

Not necessarally. Our economy isn't a zero sum game.

If we shifted tax burden from those with the highest propensity to spend, to those with a lower propensity to spend, we would create more demand. When demand increases, businesses seek to fill that demand, thus they expand, and create more jobs. When more people are able to find jobs, then we produce more, and EVERYONE can become richer.

I thought that you understood economics. Guess I was wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.

I know it's not directed at me, but overall I agree with that - except that far leftists and progressives don't view investing as "spending" with regard to economy expansion. They insist that the immediate result has to be tangential and "real", or it's not creating any value-added results along the economic chain.

They tend to be rather myopic when it comes to general welfare from any source other than the bottom. This is why they mock the "trickle-down" - something they tend to know nothing about.

 

[imagep]

How much current income tax burden is there on the bottom 50% of income earners? To ignore the need for adequate employment is an like an ostrich with its head up his own ass. You cannot solve economic issues by giving out resources for non-productive activities...

Not a lot, because they don't have much income to pay in taxes.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

Not a lot, because they don't have much income to pay in taxes.

Then all you're arguing for is to give them someone else's earned income to spend...

 

[imagep]

I know it's not directed at me, but overall I agree with that - except that far leftists and progressives don't view investing as "spending" with regard to economy expansion. They insist that the immediate result has to be tangential and "real", or it's not creating any value-added results along the economic chain.

They tend to be rather myopic when it comes to general welfare from any source other than the bottom. This is why they mock the "trickle-down" - something they tend to know nothing about.

Historical reality has proven that trickle down has created a great deal of new wealth - but only for the 1%. Hey, if your only interest is enriching people who already have more than they will ever spend, then I get where you are coming from. My interest is creating more wealth that is shared by everyone who bothers to work.

 

[Gipper]

A rising tide lifts all boats at the same rate. Doesn't matter if it is a childs floaty toy, or an oceanliner. Income distribution in the US worked pretty much like that during the middle of the 20th century, when we were having our best growth. Take a look at what the top tax rates were back then.

The raw amounts may be different, but based on percentages, the disparity isn't as big as many people suggest it is. A rubber ducky in a running bathtub isn't going to look as impressive with regard to buoyancy when compared to the Titanic entering deeper oceans, but it's still proportionate.

Since the 1970's, the median income has been flat, while the income of the top 1% has skyrocketed.

4, 5, 6 and 3, 5, 20 have the exact same median. See where I'm going with this?

 

[imagep]

Then all you're arguing for is to give them someone else's earned income to spend...

No, I don't think so. I'm not really sure what you are saying. If you are implying that I think that we should have more welfare, then you are absolutely incorrect. I think that we need to eliminate all forms of welfare.



I'm arguing that less income disparity would result in more wealth creation. To do this, we need fewer taxes on the worker/consumer class, we don't even necessarally have to increase tax rates on the rich.

 

[Gipper]

Historical reality has proven that trickle down has created a great deal of new wealth - but only for the 1%. Hey, if your only interest is enriching people who already have more than they will ever spend, then I get where you are coming from. My interest is creating more wealth that is shared by everyone who bothers to work.

I would say that it created new wealth mostly for the 1%, but not only. The other 99% also saw a net benefit in quality of life.

To me, it's not about how Bill Gates has more money than I could dream of. He's earned that. People are not uniform. Work is not uniform. Therefore, wealth should not be uniform. The free market dictates which people are more valuable to society, and who work the hardest/smartest.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

No, I don't think so. I'm not really sure what you are saying. If you are implying that I think that we should have more welfare, then you are absolutely incorrect. I think that we need to eliminate all forms of welfare.



I'm arguing that less income disparity would result in more wealth creation. To do this, we need fewer taxes on the worker/consumer class, we don't even necessarally have to increase tax rates on the rich.

No, what is needed is more employment opportunities to create competition within those groups where there is excess labor...

 

[Gipper]

No, what is needed is more employment opportunities to create competition within those groups where there is excess labor...

The problem is that excess labor is in unskilled trades, and America is too lazy/entitled/stupid to work on self-improvement to keep up with changing times.

General Motors spoiled the grunts, getting paid 30 bucks an hour for doing work you could train a chimp to do.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

The problem is that excess labor is in unskilled trades, and America is too lazy/entitled/stupid to work on self-improvement to keep up with changing times.

General Motors spoiled the grunts, getting paid 30 bucks an hour for doing work you could train a chimp to do.

Agreed, which is why we need to concentrate on business tax policy to encourage more investment in the country...

 

[The Man]

Also, doesn't "living wage" vary by the number of children one has? Should the minimum wage vary by whether one is single with no kids, married with one kid, two kids, single with two kids, etc.?

 

[thinkforyoursel]

Forget the technical argument about what a living wage is. The real problem is simply that these jobs were never meant for an adult raising kids ...that's the problem.

Back in the 60's/70's when we had a manufacturing sector ...non-college educated workers could get a factory job and raise a family.

Now those jobs are gone ...and whats left are the high level skilled positions...and very very low level jobs that once were for college or high school kids to get some pop-corn and movie money!!

This is more about the disappearing middle class ...because next up....are the high level skilled jobs!! And the new immigration bill ..that's poised to flood the country with HB-1 visas is taking aim!!

In all honesty ...you people are giving away the country. Because while some MBA guy feels he works hard for his $90K/yr job ...and is pitted against the guy fighting for this ..living wage.....the very republican are finding a way to get his job done for $30K a year.

Stop taking the bait republicans .....your knee jerk reaction that there can ..NEVER...NEVER be anything you can find common ground with a democrat about ...will be the country's undoing!!

The "occupiers"....had a cause ...the GOD DAM BANKS continue to rape the American people ...and you idiots so "trained" to be pitted against each other ...made dam sure ...NUTHIN was done!! Because the occupiers realized ...even OBAMA was on the take!!