- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
- Messages
- 27,199
- Reaction score
- 14,222
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
They're free to participate if they want. I did just that when I was working.
Great! Not what I’m proposing though.
They're free to participate if they want. I did just that when I was working.
Ah, “neener neener”.
Shrug.
Yep, it’s amazing how folks who do not own a business know so much about how others should (be forced to?) run theirs.
Noted.Great! Not what I’m proposing though.
Yep, it’s amazing how folks who do not own a business know so much about how others should (be forced to?) run theirs.
See? Even here. So disingenuous in how your rephrase anything I’ve said.
Jesus you guys get sooooo mad when folks just know more than you do about the subject you wish to lecture them on. SOOOO mad.
Yep, it’s almost as if we were discussing a federal mandate to raise the minimum pay of employees.
Yes but unions can also give one group a better cut than another and this way keep the inflation low. They can also meet the employers demands as a group (for quality, education or working conditions). Now, it is difficult for me to comment on union contra non union products , since non union branches does not exists in sweden. If a company doesn't want to make a collective agreement with the union the unions can put the company under blockade. The blockade can be indefinatly or until the company sign an collective agreement. The unions in sweden are strong and rich (well , as Amazon soon will discover...)Unions drive up labor costs, making their higher priced products lose market share to non-union (or imported) products.
Okay, well, he doesn't really fit in the libertian economic theories so, we call him an exception.The friends I mentioned knew what I knew, but like to be vocal about how much they paid.
Yes but unions can also give one group a better cut than another and this way keep the inflation low. They can also meet the employers demands as a group (for quality, education or working conditions). Now, it is difficult for me to comment on union contra non union products , since non union branches does not exists in sweden. If a company doesn't want to make a collective agreement with the union the unions can put the company under blockade. The blockade can be indefinatly or until the company sign an collective agreement. The unions in sweden are strong and rich
But compaired to other countries we stand quite well and the model where union and employeers negotiates the wages with eachother has had an positive effect on inflation and we are an exporting country so... Also the employers organisations prefer it. We also have relative low wages compaired to GB or Germany. We work longer in age than most EU countries and so on, so it has not lead to the chaos that US libertian often says it would, but it has lead to less segregation (which off cource is not what a conservative wants).
Then there is off course countries like China, but do we really want to be on their level? There is no winning, they use forced labour which is very much like slavery, no way of winning that war by having low wages. Instead ethnical and working environment demands has to be the way to go. Fortunatly also transport costs, so...
The countries with the highest median incomes are:
- Luxembourg - $52,493
- Norway - $51,489
- Sweden - $50,514
- Australia- $46,555
- Denmark - $44,360
- United States - $43,585
Oh, I haven't seen that... But still we are an exporting nation...
$15 used to be good pay a long time ago when I was a teen, but that was, as I said a long time ago. Now days $15 will barely pay todays costs for living.If two “low skill workers“ are now making $11/hour and $15/hour respectively then why is it “easy to assert that they are worth” $15/hour? Currently, one is deemed worth $4/hour more than the other and both are being paid (significantly) more than the federal MW, yet you now seem to assert that they have equally minimal worth at the (arbitrary?) rate of $15/hour.
$15 used to be good pay a long time ago when I was a teen, but that was, as I said a long time ago. Now days $15 will barely pay todays costs for living.
So yes, I assert that our time is worth $15 hour at the minimum. FYI Journeyman wages are a lot higher than they used to be. That so called arbitrary amount of $15 an hour turns out to be about what a apprentice starts out at.
I get it, you think that some workers are not worth that much to you. What I say to that is that I really do not give a ****. Its bad enough that we have to give up our short time on Earth to work for someone else doing crap for them, but we get demand what we get paid as the worker. If employers do not want to pay what we are worth, then they can just suffer without us.
Personally I was self employed for a great deal of years. But even then I was actually working for my customers. Of course Im a highly skilled worker, it wasnt always that way though. The work I did at the beginning was still worth the income that I needed to survive. Thats all that anyone really wants. To deprive someone of that just because you are a cheap employer is not an excuse it is just mean and selfish.
The increase in the minimum wage should put an upward pressure on those wages. Besides, if capitalism works as right wingers allege, why did the minimum wage stagnate for around a decade? It would not need to be raised now if wages had kept up with inflation the whole time.Nice rant, for sure, but you seem to have totally missed my point. Most workers are now getting paid (significantly) more than the federal MW. No matter what the federal MW becomes that variance in pay above the federal MW (based on the different skill levels of workers) is expected to be maintained. Why, exactly, would someone now making $8/hour more than the federal MW suddenly become content to work for the federal MW?
The increase in the minimum wage should put an upward pressure on those wages. Besides, if capitalism works as right wingers allege, why did the minimum wage stagnate for around a decade? It would not need to be raised now if wages had kept up with inflation the whole time.
Nice rant, for sure, but you seem to have totally missed my point. Most workers are now getting paid (significantly) more than the federal MW. No matter what the federal MW becomes that variance in pay above the federal MW (based on the different skill levels of workers) is expected to be maintained. Why, exactly, would someone now making $8/hour more than the federal MW suddenly become content to work for the federal MW?
Why would they have to?
I suppose they could quit if not given a ‘voluntary’ (larger) pay raise, but they just saw everyone making less than they did get a (larger) mandatory pay raise.
I want to be clear: why would their co-workers pay raise affect their current salary? Or are you saying they would be mad about it or something?
Of course they “would be mad about it”. If Sam mad Sally made $8/hour more than Joe and Jane did before the MW increase then why would they not “be mad about it” when that is no longer the case?
Didn't lie as I was with him when he bought.Okay, well, he doesn't really fit in the libertian economic theories so, we call him an exception.
He ever considering lying about it and saving money at the same time? That would give him 2 plusses.
The only problem with a persons time being worth $15 an hour is finding an employer with some labor needs worth paying $15 an hour.$15 used to be good pay a long time ago when I was a teen, but that was, as I said a long time ago. Now days $15 will barely pay todays costs for living.
So yes, I assert that our time is worth $15 hour at the minimum. FYI Journeyman wages are a lot higher than they used to be. That so called arbitrary amount of $15 an hour turns out to be about what a apprentice starts out at.
I get it, you think that some workers are not worth that much to you. What I say to that is that I really do not give a ****. Its bad enough that we have to give up our short time on Earth to work for someone else doing crap for them, but we get demand what we get paid as the worker. If employers do not want to pay what we are worth, then they can just suffer without us.
Personally I was self employed for a great deal of years. But even then I was actually working for my customers. Of course Im a highly skilled worker, it wasnt always that way though. The work I did at the beginning was still worth the income that I needed to survive. Thats all that anyone really wants. To deprive someone of that just because you are a cheap employer is not an excuse it is just mean and selfish.
No one is forcing them to stay where there is limited employment opportunities.
Congratulations!The claim from the left is that imposing a minimum wage law helps people at the bottom of the economic ladder.
Those of us on the right say it does the opposite - it harms people on the bottom. Here's the short version why:
Suppose you wanted to help people who own older, low-value cars by imposing a price floor law on cars which decrees that no car may be sold for less than $3000.
The law doesn't, and can't, change what anyone's car is worth in the market for cars. After the law is passed, a poor person who owns a car worth $2000 will not be able to legally sell his car, because no one will pay $3000 for a car that is only worth $2000. Hence any person who owns a car worth less than $3000 is made worse off by the law.
Now suppose you wanted to help people with low skill, low-value labor by imposing a price floor on labor (a minimum wage law), which decrees that no one may sell their labor for less than $15 per hour.
The law doesn't, and can't, change what anyone's labor is worth in the market for labor. After the law is passed, a poor person whose labor is only worth $12 per hour will not find any buyers, because no employer will pay $15 per hour for labor that is only worth $12 per hour. Any person whose labor is worth less than $15 per hour is made worse off by the law.
Mandating a minimum price for something doesn't (and can't) change how people actually value it.