• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal minimum wage rate.

I'm Supposn

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,563
Reaction score
221
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'm a proponent of more robots in fast food joints.
Gulfman, joint manager's decisions are usually correct; their enterprises cannot survive too many bad decisions and I generally don't presume to argue with them. But sometimes I wonder if an industry is not just following a current fashion rather than thinking the entire concept all the way through.
Respectfully, Supposn
Automation:
Automation reduces per unit costs and/or improves quality and/or consistency of those products’ quality. It has not and will not be to USA’s net economic detriment.

Automation tools, assembly lines, and methods require labor to design, create, maintain, and repair them even if they may not require many people to operate them.
Automated production, no less than the production of any other services or goods products, requires production supporting labor and enterprises.

Automation has always been, and I expect it will continue to be to our nation's best interest. To the extent that labor's costs are less, introduction of automation is delayed. This is typical of our world's poorest economies.

Respectfully, Supposn
 

I'm Supposn

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,563
Reaction score
221
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
our middle class is alive and well
in fact, the upper middle class is doing better today than ever before
our standard of living is better today than in 1940, 50, 60 ...
Gdgyva, I doubt if those earning no more than the median wage are in aggregate doing all that well and their standards of living are better today than they were during the 1960's.
(although I do not particularly doubt, or refute, or agree with your contention that USA's upper-middle-class [and I would suppose along with those more wealthy], who earn more than USA's median wage are in aggregate “doing better today than ever before”.

In February-1968 the Cost Price index of federal minimum wage peaked at its maximum value. Between then and April-2019 it has lost more than 39% of its purchasing power. USA cannot achieve a more adequate median wage rate unless our federal minimum wage rate's adequate.
The purchasing power of USA's median wage rate's among the best indicators of USA's living standards.
Respectfully, Supposn
 

TheEconomist

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2019
Messages
1,092
Reaction score
225
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Well, you need to consider everybody. If your CEO is making a reasonable salary, then there is an argument to be made that you can't afford to pay your workers more. But if your CEO is making millions, then wages could just be shifted to the lower end without affecting profits one bit. So your question missed the point. Of course everybody's wages should get a bump. But it's also possible that some (large) salaries should come down, as well. If a company is highly profitable, it's making those high profits on the backs of labor.
This ignores the possibility that inducing what people higher in the administration do is somewhat commensurate in value with their income. The thesis that workers are "exploited" relies on this rather convenient belief that people maneuvering or involved in the maneuvering of large corporations are both willing and able to pay workers below the relevant set of options costs that need to be accrued to incite them to work. I am not convinced in the least bit you can do that to any large extent. Even in a market that you would claim to be concentrated, very large gaps between what anyone at any level of an organization produces and what they get are profit opportunities and, if you sitting in your living room without knowledge of any of the specifics of a very large set of businesses and their activities can spot them, it is all the truer that competitors, both existing and potential, can spot them.

Why not cut in your profit margin, capture the better workers or do a combination of both to capture the market? The ability of any one person to do as they please is quite bounded in a market where you need to turn a buck to survive. If you go too high for any factor of production, somebody can take your place; if you go too low, somebody can also take your place. Workers can be poached, for examples, and they're not all equal even for such things as flipping burgers. And if the problem is so ostensibly obvious that even much less informed people such as ourselves can spot it, everyone in a position to take advantage of it also can see it. The only mechanism I know that can sustain large pricing problems without inciting people to take advantage of it (and either eliminate or considerably reduce its scope) is when the government decides to enforce it. Licensing laws and government-granted monopolies do exactly that, to the benefit of a few and the detriment of everyone else.

Moreover, even if someone would concede that you are right at least to some extent, that "workers" are being screwed by management on a massive scale, the very real problem we face is not picking an outcome as if we could supply anything by magic. The problem is who should decide considering we have limited options, limited knowledge, and limited capacity to execute any plan. The choice you picked out here concerns what is a "reasonable" pay for a CEO. I don't think that government officials who are far from the experience of people involved in those businesses and subject only to occasional electoral checks as opposed to continuous cash flows are in any position to make a judgment about what is a reasonable pay for anyone, let alone for CEOs in particular. This does not mention that a handful of legislators and bureaucrats who have the power to alter the rules of the game form a very narrow set of people to make that call, as opposed to the very larger set of consumers and market participants involved in determining what is a service or good worth and, by extension, what can be gained or not from involvement in the production of such good or service.


And, if it wasn't enough, nothing short of the myriad of stupid regulations put in place by the US government prevents you from stopping to work for someone else and starting a business of your own.
 

TheEconomist

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2019
Messages
1,092
Reaction score
225
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Government used to work better than it does now, before the influence of big donors took over. So we have already gotten a taste of what the country is like when government defers to business interests. I don't like that taste, and I really doubt that cutting even more regulations is going to make it taste any better.
I'll give you an example then, taken from Thomas Sowell. There is a federal agency which deals with problems regarding discrimination in the workplace. It was created in response to the Civil Rights Act. Although the congressional debate makes it clear that preferential treatment of minorities was not the point of the bill, this agency actually makes a point of enforcing preferential treatment as a way to counteract presumably discriminatory forces. The record does show "reverse racism" was not going to be enforced, that is exactly what this agency requires. This also flies in the face of the 14th amendment which prevents the government, state and federal, from instituting discriminatory laws: preferential treatment of minorities is in fact unconstitutional. And if that was not enough, the phrase "affirmative action" actually comes from the modus operandi of that agency: it requires employers to confess to not distributing employments and promotions following proportions of specific groups in the US population and it requires employers to state a plan for attaining this proportionality, even when everyone involves knows it is in fact mathematically impossible in some cases.

The reason this agency and many others can do things like these legally is that they do not legally issue punishments for failing to comply with their arbitrary standards of what is acceptable. They just make it mandatory to follow their requirements for entire hosts of federal subsidies. In some markets, as in maritime transportation, the subsidies in question are so large it's impossible for a firm to compete without the subsidies. In practice, many of the regulations you see as beneficial give an untold amount of power over the financial security of vastly many individuals to unelected bureaucrats who are cherry-picked for their zeal in the area they oversee. The power and ability of those bureaucrats to keep their staff employed depend on finding problems and fighting them, so you can bet they are creative.

All of this underscores the problem because (a) not everyone has the same access to key politicians and bureaucrats to make things move, as well as the resources to understand the maze of technical material in which those agencies thrive and (b) to the extent that regulation cannot be implemented to everyone at all time, it can be used as a weapon. I pointed out federal agencies, but you can look at regulations involving everything down to menu details like how high you should hang a mirror above the floor in a shop, or a specific highly detailed protocol down to the measuring units that must be used to make quality and security assessment in some cases. Even for a small business in a small town, the number of laws and regulations concerning specifically their business that must be obeyed can fill several thousands of pages. It's almost guaranteed you don't hit a perfect score on all of them and you can be sued or fined for failing to comply with any one of them. That's where (b) is a very, very big problem: incumbent firms can weaponize regulations they have learned to follow, but which newcomers have trouble coping with to force them out of business. There are lawyers approaching people in a wheelchair and offering them thousands of dollars per month to have them go to certain stores so they can be filmed to be present and these lawyers can sue the business for failing to provide adequate facilities -- and it can be as dumb as imperfectly placed carpets or isles that are 0.5 inches too narrow.


Most of that is just pure nonsense at the social level, though it is perfectly reasonable for politicians, bureaucrats, and incumbent businesses. Dramatically cutting in the power of those agencies and getting rid of vast amounts of regulations might actually be a very sane thing to do.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,842
Reaction score
32,520
Awards
1
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
AlbqOwl said:
I am for the federal government perhaps establishing a low minimum wage to prevent unethical employers from engaging in phony apprentice programs etc. and thereby utilizing what amounts to slave labor. It is appropriate at the federal level because often employers are working in more than one state and it would be difficult for the states to police that.
There are better, more direct ways to eliminate those loopholes. If you don't like unpaid/low wage apprentice programs, just legislate rules that eliminate the problem.



Labor is never compensated "what they are worth." Labor is compensated according to the demand for labor. The price of corn isn't "what it's worth," the price of corn varies with the supply and demand for corn. If there is lots of excess corn, then prices will go down. And if there is lots of excess labor, then, in a free market, wages will fall, too. Just like healthcare, wages are one of those things that needs some government intervention.



What an employee produces for the company merely sets the ceiling of his possible compensation, not the floor.
Well, I didn't anticipating liking your post in this thread, but well said.


The only thing I would add is that low-paid internships are often valuable because they establish connections and experience within an industry that can propel you to a more successful career later.


That, after all, is why successful wealthy and upper-middle-class families often encourage their children to take them.
 

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
20,167
Reaction score
7,917
Location
lincoln park
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
That, after all, is why successful wealthy and upper-middle-class families often encourage their children to take them.
And that their parents are successful and wealthy is why they are able to take them.
 

I'm Supposn

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,563
Reaction score
221
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Too many people consider economics as always a “zero-sum game”;(i.e. one's gain must be at the expense of other's losses). It ain't necessarily so, and it is specifically not so with regard to the U.S. federal minimum wage rate. [Paul Wellstone was a U.S. Senator from Minnesota]. Respectfully, Supposn

The progressive vision: We all do better when we all do better | MinnPost
The rallying cry of the labor movement is “an injury to one is an injury to all.” The Bible teaches us that “I am my brother’s keeper.” Benjamin Franklin implored fellow delegates to sign the Declaration of Independence saying, “We must hang together or most assuredly we will all hang separately.” And Paul Wellstone used to always say, “We all do better when we all do better.”
 

James972

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2016
Messages
22,166
Reaction score
808
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Too many people consider economics as always a “zero-sum game”;(i.e. one's gain must be at the expense of other's losses). It ain't necessarily so, and it is specifically not so with regard to the U.S. federal minimum wage rate. [Paul Wellstone was a U.S. Senator from Minnesota]. Respectfully, Supposn

The progressive vision: We all do better when we all do better | MinnPost
The rallying cry of the labor movement is “an injury to one is an injury to all.” The Bible teaches us that “I am my brother’s keeper.” Benjamin Franklin implored fellow delegates to sign the Declaration of Independence saying, “We must hang together or most assuredly we will all hang separately.” And Paul Wellstone used to always say, “We all do better when we all do better.”

Reasons intelligent people oppose minimum wage:

1) MW it illegal to employ people not worth minimum wage
2) raise prices for poor people who often shop where minimum wage folks work
3) speeds up automation and replacement of minimum wage jobs
4) teaches workers that you get ahead with govt violence rather than being worth more
5) raises prices, reduces demand, and thus reduces employment
6) makes American workers even less competitive with foreign workers
7) makes a huge % of work force (42%) minimum age workers with no incentive to improve their skills.
8) speeds up transition from high density brick and mortar employment to low density on line employment
9) encourages govt to enact similar libsocialist policies to get more votes from the supposed beneficiaries
10) a higher minimum wage encourages higher skilled workers to take jobs that were once held by mimimum wage workers.
11) nothing is free.MW encourages employers to extract more in productivity, conditions, fringe benefits, scheduling, vacation/sick days, overtime, etc etc.
 

I'm Supposn

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,563
Reaction score
221
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Reasons intelligent people oppose minimum wage:

1) MW it illegal to employ people not worth minimum wage ...
... 5) raises prices, reduces demand, and thus reduces employment ...
... 8) speeds up transition from high density brick and mortar employment to low density on line employment ...
James972:
(1) What did you mean by this sentence, “MW it illegal to employ people not worth minimum wage”?
(8) What did you mean by this sentence, “Speeds up transition from high density brick and mortar employment to low density on line employment?

5) Eliminating the federal minimum wage rate would increase jobs of extremely lesser than our current minimum wage rate's purchasing power. Because there would be no legaly enforced “bottom” to wages, at any given time the indefinite market determined minimum wage rate would be the extremely poorest possible purchasing power then possible. Due to the economic concept of wage differentiation, the purchasing powers of all other wage rates would also be somewhat adversely effected.

It's not a certainty, because many enterprises are dependent upon the financial well being of those in the lower and/or the middle income earning brackets, but it likely that the nation's jobs will increase.

The nation's GDP may slightly increase. The GDP increase would be small because the additional jobs would almost entirely be tasks that previously did not justify the cost of having them done.

But due to the reduced purchasing power of the nation's market determined effective minimum wage rate and our median wage rate, our nation's incidents of poverty will increase. Specifically, both the proportion of our workforce that are the working poor, and the proportion of the working poor in need of public assistance will both be significantly increase. Thus due to the elimination of the federal minimum wage rate, the purchasing powers of our wages and our living standard will be reduced.

Respectfully, Supposn
 

Hamish Howl

Horrible Bastard
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 16, 2019
Messages
6,945
Reaction score
3,181
Location
Tucson
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Well, I didn't anticipating liking your post in this thread, but well said.


The only thing I would add is that low-paid internships are often valuable because they establish connections and experience within an industry that can propel you to a more successful career later.


That, after all, is why successful wealthy and upper-middle-class families often encourage their children to take them.
They can afford them.
 

Hamish Howl

Horrible Bastard
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 16, 2019
Messages
6,945
Reaction score
3,181
Location
Tucson
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Reasons intelligent people oppose minimum wage:

1) MW it illegal to employ people not worth minimum wage
2) raise prices for poor people who often shop where minimum wage folks work
3) speeds up automation and replacement of minimum wage jobs
4) teaches workers that you get ahead with govt violence rather than being worth more
5) raises prices, reduces demand, and thus reduces employment
6) makes American workers even less competitive with foreign workers
7) makes a huge % of work force (42%) minimum age workers with no incentive to improve their skills.
8) speeds up transition from high density brick and mortar employment to low density on line employment
9) encourages govt to enact similar libsocialist policies to get more votes from the supposed beneficiaries
10) a higher minimum wage encourages higher skilled workers to take jobs that were once held by mimimum wage workers.
11) nothing is free.MW encourages employers to extract more in productivity, conditions, fringe benefits, scheduling, vacation/sick days, overtime, etc etc.
1. "Not worth minimum wage"?

2. That would apply if the minimum wage was *too* high. On the other hand, if half your population can't afford to buy anything, you really can't have a consumer economy.
 

I'm Supposn

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,563
Reaction score
221
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Reasons intelligent people oppose minimum wage:
... (2) raise prices for poor people who often shop where minimum wage folks work
3) speeds up automation and replacement of minimum wage jobs
4) teaches workers that you get ahead with govt violence rather than being worth more ...
... (6) makes American workers even less competitive with foreign workers
7) makes a huge % of work force (42%) minimum age workers with no incentive to improve their skills. ...
... (9) encourages govt to enact similar libsocialist policies to get more votes from the supposed beneficiaries
10) a higher minimum wage encourages higher skilled workers to take jobs that were once held by minimum wage workers.
11) nothing is free.MW encourages employers to extract more in productivity, conditions, fringe benefits, scheduling, vacation/sick days, overtime, etc etc.
James972:
(2) Does the minimum wage rate raise prices only for poor people who often shop where minimum wage folks work? You mean that prices don't rise if the minimum wage rate doesn't rise? If we eliminated the federal minimum wage, the consumer price indexes would remain static? The minimum wage is among the primary causes of U.S. Dollar's rate of inflation and those price increases are only or more applicable to products that are primarily sold to poorer purchasers?

(3) The minimum wage does promote automation and replacement of many jobs including minimum wage jobs. We know that's to our nation's economic advantage and promote better living standards.
Among the characteristics of the worlds poorest nations is their inability to enforces anything that performs a function similar to the U.S. federal minimum wage rate, which would bolster all of their wage scales purchasing powers. Due to lower wage purchasing powers, the nation is slower to adopt automation which would otherwise improve their nations' economies.

(4) Due to the federal minimum wage rate, workers are induced to riot?

(6) Yes, if you reduce USA's wages' purchasing powers and our living standards, our products could become so cheap that other nations may further restrict USA goods from entering their markets because our prices would be too competitive.

(7) You contend that 42% of USA workforce now refrains from improving their ability to earn more because they're entirely satisfied with their present wages?

(9) Encourages govt to enact similar* libsocialist policies to get more votes from the supposed beneficiaries? I think I understand what you meant and I wish it were true.

(10) A higher minimum wage encourages higher skilled workers to take jobs that were once held by minimum wage workers? You mean that if the minimum wage is increased, the foreman is not going to get a raise. He's going to quit and work somewhere else as a mens' room attendant?

11) You mean if we eliminate the federal minimum wage rate, workers will have it easier? No one will have to work as hard as they currently do? Free beer in the break room? More paid holidays and longer paid vacations? Why go on vacation. It's more fun to stay at work?

Respectfully, Supposn
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,842
Reaction score
32,520
Awards
1
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
1. "Not worth minimum wage"?
Yes.The value-added of a particular form or application of labor doesn't actually, magically, increase simply because we put a price-floor on it, any more than the value of anything else increases when we put a price-floor on it, or decreases when we put a price-ceiling on it.


2. That would apply if the minimum wage was *too* high. On the other hand, if half your population can't afford to buy anything, you really can't have a consumer economy.
That is correct - our minimum wage is too high, with the result that we price low-skill low-education labor out of the market, in favor of black market illegal labor (who may have similar education and skill level profiles, but who can work for a rate at which they can be hired, while Americans' cannot), and automation.
 

I'm Supposn

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,563
Reaction score
221
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yes.The value-added of a particular form or application of labor doesn't actually, magically, increase simply because we put a price-floor on it, any more than the value of anything else increases when we put a price-floor on it, or decreases when we put a price-ceiling on it.

That is correct - our minimum wage is too high, with the result that we price low-skill low-education labor out of the market, in favor of black market illegal labor (who may have similar education and skill level profiles, but who can work for a rate at which they can be hired, while Americans' cannot), and automation.
CPWill, Hamish Howl, and James972, if the definite legally determined and enforced minimum wage rate were eliminated, it would be replaced by an indefinite market determined rate; Within every labor market there's effectively a minimum rate applicable to the least desirable applicant or employee.

It's more usual rather than unusual for employers believing one, or more, or almost all of their employees labors are not worthy of their wages.
Employers generally do not conduct their businesses with altruistic manners.
Employers generally can choose who they hire and can choose who they wish to hire or fire.

Employees are generally hired and retained because due to their employment by the enterprise, their employers perceive some current or future net advantage to themselves or their enterprises if they hire and retain those individual employees, or their employers perceive some current or future net disadvantage to themselves or their enterprises if they do not hire or do not retain those individual employees.

Regardless if there is a legally determined and enforced minimum rate or only an indefinite market determined minimum wage rate, everything described within this post remains applicable to employer/employee relationships.

Respectfully, Supposn
 

James972

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2016
Messages
22,166
Reaction score
808
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
But if your CEO is making millions, then wages could just be shifted to the lower end without affecting profits one bit.
1) You don't mean shifted, you mean violently forced by govt men with guns. Liberals only have violent solutions.
2) Interfering with wages and prices distorts the free market and causes inefficiency and lower standards of living. This is why China switched and is now getting rich.
 

James972

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2016
Messages
22,166
Reaction score
808
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
James972:
( The minimum wage is among the primary causes of U.S. Dollar's rate of inflation
the minimum wage does not change the money supply so has no affect on inflation. 1+1=2
 

James972

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2016
Messages
22,166
Reaction score
808
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The minimum wage does promote automation and replacement of many jobs including minimum wage jobs. We know that's to our nation's economic advantage and promote better living standards.
total liberal ignorance as usual. Why not raise minimum to $100 then, and really encourage better living standards sooner? In fact, only the free markets knows the most efficient blend of labor and capital. LibNazi guessing leads to greater and greater inefficiency. I suggest you think about it over and over again.

You lack the IQ to understand capitalism so propose 10001 interventions just like any communist socialist fascist or Nazi. Do you want to admit it, to come clean before God??
 

James972

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2016
Messages
22,166
Reaction score
808
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Regardless if there is a legally determined and enforced minimum rate or only an indefinite market determined minimum wage rate, everything described within this post remains applicable to employer/employee relationships.

Respectfully, Supposn
Wrong of course a free market minimum wage is based in economic efficiency while a libNazi minimum wage is based on wild guessing by a few bureaucrats in Washington who ruin efficiency lowering living standards.
 

James972

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2016
Messages
22,166
Reaction score
808
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
1. "Not worth minimum wage"?

2. That would apply if the minimum wage was *too* high. On the other hand, if half your population can't afford to buy anything, you really can't have a consumer economy.
total liberal ignorance! There is no threshold at which you say you have a consumer economy nor is it clear why you would want a consumer economy as opposed to some other economy.
 

James972

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2016
Messages
22,166
Reaction score
808
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
(7) You contend that 42% of USA workforce now refrains from improving their ability to earn more because they're entirely satisfied with their present wages?
I content that if 42% of workers are making the same minimum wage the link between education, ambition, hard work, creativity and income is severed and another liberal depression would be the result.
 

I'm Supposn

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,563
Reaction score
221
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Reasons intelligent people oppose minimum wage:
1) MW it illegal to employ people not worth minimum wage
2) raise prices for poor people who often shop where minimum wage folks work ...
James972: … (2) Does the minimum wage rate raise prices only for poor people who often shop where minimum wage folks work? You mean that prices don't rise if the minimum wage rate doesn't rise? If we eliminated the federal minimum wage, the consumer price indexes would remain static? The minimum wage is among the primary causes of U.S. Dollar's rate of inflation and those price increases are only or more applicable to products that are primarily sold to poorer purchasers? ...
[Originally Posted by I'm Supposn:
“James972: ( The minimum wage is among the primary causes of U.S. Dollar's rate of inflation.”]

the minimum wage does not change the money supply so has no affect on inflation. 1+1=2
James972, you hadn't deliberately meant to quote me out of context? Your post makes it appear that I have not often within other threads asserted the federal minimum wage rate is not among the primary causes for U.S. Dollar's losses of purchasing power? To imply I'm contending otherwise would be a deceitful act on your part. Respectfully, Supposn
 

I'm Supposn

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,563
Reaction score
221
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I contend that if 42% of workers are making the same minimum wage the link between education, ambition, hard work, creativity and income is severed and another liberal depression would be the result.
James972, before attempting to prove your statement within post #71, can you try to explain and just briefly support it? What is it that you're contending?
///////////////////////////////////
... Regardless if there is a legally determined and enforced minimum rate or only an indefinite market determined minimum wage rate, everything described within this post remains applicable to employer/employee relationships. ...
Wrong of course a free market minimum wage is based in economic efficiency while a libNazi minimum wage is based on wild guessing by a few bureaucrats in Washington who ruin efficiency lowering living standards.
Regarding post #69, what specifically is within the portion of my statement you didn't quote, that you found to be wrong? How and why do you find “it” wrong?

What's a LibNazi? What's a LibNazi minimum wage as compared to a Canadian or an Australian minimum wage? Compare it to our U.S. Federal minimum wage rate? How do they differ from your LibNazi minimum?

Are you referring to the aggregate members of both U.S. congressional legislative chambers as “ a few bureaucrats in Washington”? They did something wrong? I'm not surprised, but what is it in particular that disturbs you?
////////////////////////////////

My grandchildren want something of me. I'll try to get back to you later.

Respectfully, Supposn
 

bongsaway

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2019
Messages
12,435
Reaction score
5,320
Location
Flori-duh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Federal minimum wage rate.
I'm a proponent of the federal minimum wage be increased12.5% annually until it achieves no less than 125% of February 1968 cost price indexed value. Thereafter the monitored minimum rate should annually (when necessary), be modified to retain that purchasing power.
Respectfully, Supposn
Since I'm neither a math genius, a geopolitical professor nor an economist all I know is that in most instances if you're making minimum wage, you're screwed. Unlike the old popular belief, greed is not good. We throw numbers around until we've deadened our senses to people's needs. To have a decent life without worrying yourself to death over bills and health care, car insurance, rent, food etc. The basics of life in 2019. Why has that become too much to ask? Why is it that ten percent of america has more than the other ninety percent together? Money, greed. We can change things in america but that would literally require we vote out everyone who is in office and if they don't do as we wish with our tax money, we vote them out next election. We demand how our money is being spent, we all want health care, we all want a living wage not a minimum wage. Am I wrong?
 

Bullseye

Every job is essential
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2018
Messages
25,144
Reaction score
8,557
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Since I'm neither a math genius, a geopolitical professor nor an economist all I know is that in most instances if you're making minimum wage, you're screwed. Unlike the old popular belief, greed is not good. We throw numbers around until we've deadened our senses to people's needs. To have a decent life without worrying yourself to death over bills and health care, car insurance, rent, food etc. The basics of life in 2019. Why has that become too much to ask? Why is it that ten percent of america has more than the other ninety percent together? Money, greed. We can change things in america but that would literally require we vote out everyone who is in office and if they don't do as we wish with our tax money, we vote them out next election. We demand how our money is being spent, we all want health care, we all want a living wage not a minimum wage. Am I wrong?
According to BLS less than 3% of all workers make the federal minimum age. Demographically they tend to be young, single, less than full time workers. Many live at home. Most move up as they gave skills, experience and training.

It is not greed to start a company, word to grow it and enjoy the benefits from that growth. If you do a very good job or develop a product or service that is in high demand you prosper. As far as I know no one starts a company saying "Ok, after the first million I quit". Bill Gates didn't say Microsoft would go out of business after Windows 8.
 
Top Bottom