Arrogance pretending to be knowledge. You have a future as something. Not sure what it is, but it's something.
Please read up on Tammany hall. I don't know if it's logical, or plausible, it's reality insofar as our historical record is accurate. So they need to woo twice as many people to get the same number of votes...this is a challenge not a fatal flaw.Mach, you do realize that the lower ones economic standing, the less likely they are to vote don't you?
While what you suggest seems perfectly logical and even plausible, when you seriously look at the numbers, it's simply not possible for the "poor to vote themselves benefits at the expense of others." I hate our welfare state as much as you do and wish to end all forms of means tested government freebees, that's one of the few things that we agree upon, but I think we have to look elsewhere to place blame.
That's how politics work. They convince voters of X. They deliver Y. Some of X may be in Y, sure, but it's not that important. I think history has also shown us that when you have two choices (republican or democrat), and neither deliver what they sell you, people still do vote. All about getting out the vote, has very little to do with how they represent us.Honestly, I really can't explain why it got to the point that it has, but it certainly wasn't poor people voting themselves other peoples wealth. It was more like the politically powerful voting for welfare, maybe with the misconception that doing so would get them votes, but it certainly wasn't the poor voting for more welfare as the poor rarely vote at all.
Completely random? Come on, when the promotion comes by everyone who wanted it and was passed up feels it was just bad luck, random. But it was likely a very calculated choice by someone based on their very specific selection criteria. They found the best match. Likewise, if you are awesome at your job, but it's a ****ty company, that's not random, that's a choice to stay at a company that cannot reward you the way you feel you should be rewarded. That's not MY Fault as the taxpayer, that's 90% your own choice. .
Yet initial conditions are not initial, they are simply the output of the prior generation which was all about hard work and puck..... If their parents, as you claim, worked hard at parenting well, they would do what many poor immigrant families did. Started dirt poor, taught their kids to get an education and a good job and a good work ethic. Their kids end up middle class. Their kids kids get to choose and largely end up some range between poor and upper class (some just wanted to be hippies and some fell into drugs because they had it easier, some went to college, etc. So at any time sure there is a segment of the population that's starting at the bottom, but that' doesn't mean anything is wrong or taxpayers should be forced to pay for things that largely have no real net-positive impact on that situation anyway. Asian immigrants consistently break the norms when they come here and magically succeed in just a single generation. Mind boggling that they do this with the same tools. How much did their culture play a role? Why would we give peoples culture a free pass, when culture is not just some initial condition, its something that is shaped and adopted by the people that are in the culture? I was raised in a religious culture, I rejected it and adopted a more reasonable, ethical culture IMO. I suffered some as a result, but I think it was the right choice. Our current family is a different culture it took some time and effort, it wasn't dramatically difficult.Initial conditions like family live, family income, location have as much to do with success, if not more, than bromides about hard work and pluck.
Dude, no wonder you feel the way you do. You've had some ****TY bosses. You really need to move or change industries. I've had a couple of bad bosses, but never anything close to how you describe all of yours. You need to exercise your freedom of choice and go find something else to do. Your environment is poisoning you. Life, especially in the US, doesn't have to be that way...
I acknowledge that it's bad business to give opportunities out at random, but it seems to still happen. Essentially, I'd have never hired almost any of the managers I've worked for. Most of them had serious attendance problems and basic soft-skill problems.Completely random? Come on, when the promotion comes by everyone who wanted it and was passed up feels it was just bad luck, random. But it was likely a very calculated choice by someone based on their very specific selection criteria. They found the best match. Likewise, if you are awesome at your job, but it's a ****ty company, that's not random, that's a choice to stay at a company that cannot reward you the way you feel you should be rewarded. That's not MY Fault as the taxpayer, that's 90% your own choice.
My first family beat me. I grew up with a different family from high school on....Kid always feel like parents are unfair. Then why they become a parent, aha, they understand...
You guys keep making the assumption that a minimum wage increase will decrease other wages or increase unemployment; that it will create a burden. There's no evidence that it will happen that way. By providing for increased consumption, you create higher demand, which lends itself to higher employment and profits. When you raise the minimum wage, your competitors have to pay it, too; it doesn't put you at a disadvantage to them, and their employees are your customers. Increasing one workers wages doesn't necessarily decrease any others; supply isn't finite, it's based on production.np, we all do it, and you're being more courteous than me. Notice your refusal to do my #1 thing that may increase your value to the market (going where work is needed), evidences that it's not "completely random", that in fact it is a choice in your power. I'm not saying that's not a hard choice< i'm just pointing out that you're taking out your job situation on everyone else, meanwhile you made the trade-off to care for people (who benefit), at the cost of your job (you have the burden). Why would want to insist others should carry your burden, when undoubtedly they made their own such trade-offs? On the serious side, that's a big issue, and I would personally find a counselor, even phone-based if necessary, to help me navigate those big life choices and to understand my options. I did that for some different life issues, and it was huge for me. Remember that the elites in our society have a whole support network, were probably groomed on how to handle issues from day one...some of us who didn't have that sliver spoon have to swallow our pride and ask for help...as it turns out, nothing to be ashamed of at all, don't let pride keep you down.
But that's the problem. If you haven't read/watched the news lately, most people are coming out of college with nothing but debt and no jobs in sight. Parents, culture, and poverty aside, you should be able to climb out of the hole if you work hard, get an education, and have a good outlook. That worked for almost two centuries in this country, and we're not denying it. I'd even agree with you, that most people from the 70's and before, we're in positions and had wages equal to their efforts more than anything else. Since the 70's or so, effort has started to mean less and less. Most people think it's because of modern digital automation. In either case, working hard and going to school doesn't put you much higher up than a highschool dropout these days. My current job pays minimum wage for all workers below management; half of them either have a degree or are almost done with one.Yet initial conditions are not initial, they are simply the output of the prior generation which was all about hard work and puck..... If their parents, as you claim, worked hard at parenting well, they would do what many poor immigrant families did. Started dirt poor, taught their kids to get an education and a good job and a good work ethic. Their kids end up middle class. Their kids kids get to choose and largely end up some range between poor and upper class (some just wanted to be hippies and some fell into drugs because they had it easier, some went to college, etc. So at any time sure there is a segment of the population that's starting at the bottom, but that' doesn't mean anything is wrong or taxpayers should be forced to pay for things that largely have no real net-positive impact on that situation anyway. Asian immigrants consistently break the norms when they come here and magically succeed in just a single generation. Mind boggling that they do this with the same tools. How much did their culture play a role? Why would we give peoples culture a free pass, when culture is not just some initial condition, its something that is shaped and adopted by the people that are in the culture? I was raised in a religious culture, I rejected it and adopted a more reasonable, ethical culture IMO. I suffered some as a result, but I think it was the right choice. Our current family is a different culture it took some time and effort, it wasn't dramatically difficult.
Yet initial conditions are not initial, they are simply the output of the prior generation which was all about hard work and puck..... If their parents, as you claim, worked hard at parenting well, they would do what many poor immigrant families did. Started dirt poor, taught their kids to get an education and a good job and a good work ethic. Their kids end up middle class. Their kids kids get to choose and largely end up some range between poor and upper class (some just wanted to be hippies and some fell into drugs because they had it easier, some went to college, etc. So at any time sure there is a segment of the population that's starting at the bottom, but that' doesn't mean anything is wrong or taxpayers should be forced to pay for things that largely have no real net-positive impact on that situation anyway. Asian immigrants consistently break the norms when they come here and magically succeed in just a single generation. Mind boggling that they do this with the same tools. How much did their culture play a role? Why would we give peoples culture a free pass, when culture is not just some initial condition, its something that is shaped and adopted by the people that are in the culture? I was raised in a religious culture, I rejected it and adopted a more reasonable, ethical culture IMO. I suffered some as a result, but I think it was the right choice. Our current family is a different culture it took some time and effort, it wasn't dramatically difficult.
Yup, I've dealt with some of the worst. It was a really bad neighborhood, lots of crime and corruption, lots of drugs, etc. It's not the only place I've worked, but it was a big part of my life. I lost a fingertip while working there (it grew back, I'm not making a sob story). It was the first time I questioned the validity of a college degree as a path to employment; about a quarter of my coworkers had degrees, mostly BAs, and two even had Master's degrees. We all made minimum wage, even after years of working there.
I did get up and move, and it served me well for almost a year. After moving, it took 2 months to get a job making 3 times as much money. It didn't last forever, the place went out of business. But, I could move when I did, I had nothing holding me there. Most of my previous coworkers lived there with their families, typically first generation immigrants; they had a responsibility to help their families and stay in the area. For the vast majority of them, moving was simply not an option. Nobody should feel "forced" to abandon their family. It's not a matter of economics, just human-decency. When I moved, I ended up in a position where family members relied on me; now I have something holding me here.
Life really shouldn't be that way, especially not in the US, but it is. Millions of Americans live under these sort of conditions. I know of "good" managers at "good" jobs, I've even had them before. But, I've seen plenty of evidence to support a trend of bad management and low wages for most workers in America. When people just define the problems away as a "choice", it completely disregards the fact that most of these "choices" are the only ones a good person could make; if they took the path to a better job, they'd be a bad person. For example, if my coworkers had just abandoned their families, they would have less expenses and more opportunities, but they'd also be scumbags. Being a good person shouldn't be punished by society, but it's often punished by ours.
Only in teapartybizarroworld is using peer reviewed scientific studies called arrogant.
Honestly, you've painted yourself into a corner of knownothingism now that you've rejected empirical research. Basically you belong to the Superstition as Argument school of economics.
I'm not trying to be argumentative with you, but if there are no opportunities in a particular area, your family has a responsibility to support you and move elsewhere if they have to. Working for someone who cheats you on a regular basis simply because your family lives in the area is absurd. You're short-circuiting the best tool you have to make a difference and at the same time asking others to subsidize your decision to stay there. Why would you expect a few more dollars in your paycheck to change your situation? Your pay rate isn't the problem...
Empirical research is rejected on a daily basis, particularly when it conflicts with basic laws of nature. If I were like you, I would simply say "debunked Neumark/Wascher studies". I prefer to think for myself. By the way, I said good day.
Anecdote: the mother's milk of discredited rightwing arguments.
As to "basic laws of nature", at this point I assert "Shenanigans" a la South Park
I think you're missing my point altogether. If you stay where you are, making minimum wage, with a college degree, then you are part of the problem. An employer will almost always pay you as little as they can to keep you there. The point is you should not be settling for minimum wage. The fact is you're overqualified for a minimum wage job and you're occupying a job that someone else needs. Lobbying the rest of us to raise the minimum wage will not improve your station in life and it won't improve the world. At best, it will encourage more people to stay in minimum wage jobs for longer periods of time. At worst, those who work for an employer on the raw edge of profit margins are priced out of a job. Say it's not true all you want, but it's common sense. Very few businesses can mint money at will. More and more work for large corporations since they can typically absorb the added costs and/or pass them on to their customers. I agree that's changing the world, but I wouldn't call it an improvement.I agree, I'm not trying to change my situation; I'm trying to change the world. My current job is minimum wage, but they treat me nicely and I expect my efforts to be rewarded. I might very well make a career here. I supplied some personal experiences just to frame my arguments, but I'm seriously not trying to change a policy that affects millions of Americans, just to serve myself. I know we're all just internet people without faces, but I'm seriously a selfless guy. You'll have to take my word on that, of course, but I seriously don't think about my own situation when I propose these solutions.
I'm not a bleeding heart liberal, mind you; I think most laws are BS nannystatism. I'm not trying to raise the minimum wage because I "hate" the rich (I'm not robin-hooding). It's seriously an attempt to fix our economy, by stimulating the purchasing power of the poor. We need less hoarding, saving, and debt from the poor. Any one-time stimulus will not increase consumer confidence, but an increase to wages would. By perceiving it as an "earned" income instead of a stimulus, consumer confidence would rise and should result in more spending. There is an equilibrium point where the employers keep an identical amount of profit, while the poor still keep their increase. It's not about reducing profits or "fixing" wealth-inequality (although I still don't like it), it's about stimulating the economy and creating more demand.
I think you're missing my point altogether. If you stay where you are, making minimum wage, with a college degree, then you are part of the problem. An employer will almost always pay you as little as they can to keep you there. The point is you should not be settling for minimum wage. The fact is you're overqualified for a minimum wage job and you're occupying a job that someone else needs. Lobbying the rest of us to raise the minimum wage will not improve your station in life and it won't improve the world. At best, it will encourage more people to stay in minimum wage jobs for longer periods of time. At worst, those who work for an employer on the raw edge of profit margins are priced out of a job. Say it's not true all you want, but it's common sense. Very few businesses can mint money at will. More and more work for large corporations since they can typically absorb the added costs and/or pass them on to their customers. I agree that's changing the world, but I wouldn't call it an improvement.
When it comes to me, I've been doing everything and anything I can in my free time to learn the skills of entrepreneurship; I don't want to waste my skills anymore, and working for anyone else will be a waste in one way or another. Thank you for giving me perspective, but you needn't worry, I have big plans.
I will take the time to read through your link, but a quick glance tells me I'm reading something from a progressive think tank. That doesn't automatically mean it's invalid, but I'll take everything I read from them with a grain of salt. They do at least have the appearance of fairness in that they do discuss research that doesn't agree with them. In your scenario the increased pay arbitrarily and directly cuts into profits. Those businesses that are barely getting by won't survive the increased costs unless they can increase prices. I agree that money isn't finite, but pumping water out of one end of a tank and putting it back into the other won't fill the tank. It's possible that higher pay leads to increased productivity in some cases, but the inevitable increase in prices washes out the notion of increased buying power. Minimum wage is a form of price control and price controls aren't effective for anything other than the very short term and they will always lead to shortages.But, you're still neglecting the effect that an increase in consumption will have on profits. Paying your employees more is going to be a hit, but everyone else will have to do it, too. Your customers will have more disposable income, creating higher demand for goods/services, and higher profits. Even if it creates a false money supply, and/or inflation, I've shown before that the inflation rate due to a MW hike shouldn't ever reach the rate at which you hike the MW; purchasing power should increase for most workers. Money isn't finite, it's linked to Production, which is connected to Demand. If Demand goes up, Supply will meet it by rising production rates, which equals increased need for workers. When all the factors are summed, the net change in unemployment rates is zero. There are plenty of empirical studies of the trend, such as this one, http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf , and they all come to the conclusion that the worst case scenario is a "shifting" effect, where teens are replaced with experienced but currently unemployed workers, but still a net change of 0 workers.
Glad to hear that. I will take the time to read through your link, but a quick glance tells me I'm reading something from a progressive think tank. That doesn't automatically mean it's invalid, but I'll take everything I read from them with a grain of salt. They do at least have the appearance of fairness in that they do discuss research that doesn't agree with them. In your scenario the increased pay arbitrarily and directly cuts into profits. Those businesses that are barely getting by won't survive the increased costs unless they can increase prices. I agree that money isn't finite, but pumping water out of one end of a tank and putting it back into the other won't fill the tank. It's possible that higher pay leads to increased productivity in some cases, but the inevitable increase in prices washes out the notion of increased buying power. Minimum wage is a form of price control and price controls aren't effective for anything other than the very short term and they will always lead to shortages.
The point is to increase spending, not really increase the means of production. The infrastructure to have a job for ever willing worker is already in place, we just need more spending to necessitate the production. Quite literally, inflation could be a good thing; if it's due to wages, it's less "noticeable" by the workers, who will still spend more (inflation adjusted).
But, buying power should increase. If a product's price is 90% linked to some ratio of the minimum wage, then any increase to the MW would eventually raise prices at a rate that is 10% less than the rate of increase to the MW. Example; if a can of potatoes is $1.00, and it's price is 90% linked to the minimum wage, then a 28% increase to the MW (~$9.28/hr) would only create a 25.2% increase in can'o'taters price, $1.25; you used to be able to buy 7.25 cans/hr, now you can buy 7.42 cans/hr. Most studies don't show any change to total employment/hours, just a change in who gets employed. But, even if hours are lost and/or prices go higher, it should still cause increased spending.
That's really the key to my argument; if you can find a fundamental flaw I'm not seeing, I'd like to know about it.
The point is to increase spending, not really increase the means of production. The infrastructure to have a job for ever willing worker is already in place, we just need more spending to necessitate the production. Quite literally, inflation could be a good thing; if it's due to wages, it's less "noticeable" by the workers, who will still spend more (inflation adjusted).
But, buying power should increase. If a product's price is 90% linked to some ratio of the minimum wage, then any increase to the MW would eventually raise prices at a rate that is 10% less than the rate of increase to the MW. Example; if a can of potatoes is $1.00, and it's price is 90% linked to the minimum wage, then a 28% increase to the MW (~$9.28/hr) would only create a 25.2% increase in can'o'taters price, $1.25; you used to be able to buy 7.25 cans/hr, now you can buy 7.42 cans/hr. Most studies don't show any change to total employment/hours, just a change in who gets employed. But, even if hours are lost and/or prices go higher, it should still cause increased spending.
That's really the key to my argument; if you can find a fundamental flaw I'm not seeing, I'd like to know about it.
Can you please cite the study that has discredited the argument that actions speak louder than words?
Can you please cite the study that has discredited the argument that actions speak louder than words?
The point is to increase spending, not really increase the means of production. The infrastructure to have a job for ever willing worker is already in place, we just need more spending to necessitate the production. Quite literally, inflation could be a good thing; if it's due to wages, it's less "noticeable" by the workers, who will still spend more (inflation adjusted).
But, buying power should increase. If a product's price is 90% linked to some ratio of the minimum wage, then any increase to the MW would eventually raise prices at a rate that is 10% less than the rate of increase to the MW. Example; if a can of potatoes is $1.00, and it's price is 90% linked to the minimum wage, then a 28% increase to the MW (~$9.28/hr) would only create a 25.2% increase in can'o'taters price, $1.25; you used to be able to buy 7.25 cans/hr, now you can buy 7.42 cans/hr. Most studies don't show any change to total employment/hours, just a change in who gets employed. But, even if hours are lost and/or prices go higher, it should still cause increased spending.
That's really the key to my argument; if you can find a fundamental flaw I'm not seeing, I'd like to know about it.
The fundamental flaw is that simply increasing our domestic consumption while decreasing the viability of US exports on the world market is not a winning plan. We need buying power but we also need selling power.
What you're describing is the economic equivalent of a perpetual motion machine. That is the fundamental flaw. Your basic approach sounds reasonable and on the face of it your math does too. Example; if a can of potatoes is $1.00, and it's price is 90% linked to the minimum wage, then a 2,800% increase to the MW (~$203/hr) would only create a 2,520% increase in can'o'taters price, $25.20; you used to be able to buy 7.25 cans/hr, now you can buy 8.06 cans/hr. You've assumed that there are no other negative reactions to your input. Is that a reasonable assumption in my example? If not, why would it be in yours?
It's not possible to regulate the price of anything or anyone (in either direction) without negative effects. In the long term, giving overqualified people more money to do a job that a teenager or mentally handicapped person can & should be doing is counterproductive. If you're after increased spending, why not simply print the money and give every family a billion dollars? Becuase it's not that simple, right?
that would be logical, except for the fact that we no longer live in a manufacturing driven economy, and with each passing day, our worldwide manufacturing sector becomes even less important (even China has been loosing manufacturing jobs to automation). there are some economies in this world where manufacturing is a minor sector of their economy, yet the population has a fairly strong economy with reasonably high standards of living.
50 years from now, our manufacturing sector will be absolutely miniscule in terms of the percent of the worldwide population who are employed in it, as technology is replacing manufacturing jobs far faster than the demand for manufactured products is increasing.
You are actually one of my favorite posters, and I agree with you a lot, but you need to start looking at the 21st century economics and not 20th century economics.
It's more about action and reaction. At some point, you'd think they would start to analyze the parade of unintended consequences and realize that they were predictable. My guess is that it's a bit generous to call them "unintended", but I'm being civil today.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?