Wages are dictated by the local job market and what what market will bear for the job in question.Contrary to Republican views, wages can be too low. Most people like there to be some idea that the American economy can have prosperity somewhat shared so that at least most Americans are prosperous, not only 10% super-prosperous instead.
But, wages are set almost entirely - outside the minimum wage and minimal laws - by the dictates of the owners. This would itself result in too-low wages. Why wouldn't it?
. . .Snipped due to posting size limitation.
A chart showing the wishbone effect of the change:
A chart showing what Americans think wealth distribution is and should be versus what it is (this is pretty old now, it's now much worse):
The "hero" and inspiration for your theory was a thief. And like the Robin Hood of legend, what you believe makes "much more sense" is also just plain old thievery - taking from the rich and giving to the poor.Those on the wealthy end of the income pool would like us to believe in some sort of trickle down effect of wealth distribution.
But it makes much more sense to give more money to the poorer part of the income pool because they will spend that money. And that is what keeps an economy buoyant.
Listen to yourself.....But it makes much more sense to give more money to the poorer part of the income poolThose on the wealthy end of the income pool would like us to believe in some sort of trickle down effect of wealth distribution.
But it makes much more sense to give more money to the poorer part of the income pool because they will spend that money. And that is what keeps an economy buoyant.
This stuff gets complicated. Not your point I mostly agree with. But for example.But it makes much more sense to give more money to the poorer part of the income pool because they will spend that money. And that is what keeps an economy buoyant.
Where as your theory is actually nothing more than just selfishness in disguise.The "hero" and inspiration for your theory was a thief. And like the Robin Hood of legend, what you believe makes "much more sense" is also just plain old thievery - taking from the rich and giving to the poor.
It's also not sustainable, since for such an economy to actually work, the thievery must be continuous - and you actually tell us why - the "poor" will spend the money given to them.
Wow! Do you think the money once spent to buy something then magically disappears?????? I am going to love whatever excuse you give.But then what? The money they were given is gone, spent.
The subject matter here is wages earned, not charity.What does your theory require now? Well, you just said it - they need to be given more so they can spend more.
Which they have every opportunity to get it back by selling them more crap. Where do you thing money goes when someone buys a new iphone?Where does "the more" come from? In your theory, the "rich." Well, you just stole their money - your theory being they have plenty of it so you can keep stealing from them.
That thinking always does appear. Wonderful that you want an economic system that starts with the premise that the poor are worthless. Not a chance that will lead to a revolution.What you people never ask though is - how did they get their money in the first place? And forget inheritances, good fortune, and luck and all that inane crap - yeah, some get it that way. We're talking about the vast majority of "the rich" - those who got it the hard way - THEY MADE IT, they created their wealth. Ideas, intelligence, skill, talent, ingenuity, hard work, DARING, RISK TAKERS... and honestly? not characteristics that describe the "poorer part of the income pool."
You have a weird idea about the poor. Now they appear to have spare cash to invest. But in reality those paid less than a living standard are having to sometimes make decisions between buying shoes for the kids or food for dinner.And to be very honest, lacking the means to make more money for themselves (than what they might already have or earn), to generate more wealth for themselves is the very reason they ARE the "poorer part of the income pool." And you and I and likely most everyone else here is part of that "pool."
Or else what? You will come after them with guns and death. You wish to rule by fear as well as oppress the majority so the few can live in luxury. That is what actual theft is.Those on the "poorer part of the income pool" have two choices: 1) be satisfied with the incomes they can earn, based on what skills or talents or education they do have, working to improve them as they're able and have opportunity (which honestly, is the VAST MAJORITY OF US) or, 2) be ever dependent on the thieves to constantly re-supply them with it.
My apology I should of realised someone would get hung up on a word. Assuming people can read in the context that the subject matter is wages is a asking a bit to much.Listen to yourself.....But it makes much more sense to give more money to the poorer part of the income pool
Not that they EARN it....that you give it to them
What ever happened to the old adage of an honest days work for an honest days pay
If a person feels they are underpaid, especially in this economy, they have every right to ask for a raise
And the owner/manager has every right to give one or say no.....
No one is FORCED to work anywhere.....if unhappy or underpaid.....MOVE or change jobs
But if it is a lack of skills that is the problem, then fix that
This stuff gets complicated. Not your point I mostly agree with. But for example.
What do you want to count as wealth? If there are productive corporations built and the wealthy own parts of them - or there is little wealth created but the wealthy own massive amounts of land - what types of wealth do you 'count' for the wealthy having more?
If you wanted to increase the wealth of a few, could you literally enslave a big percent of the population to create wealth for them, and enrich the non-slaves? But how does the math work if having them not be slaves makes them more productive, but they get to keep more?
There are a lot of complications to these things, but it's not that complicated to recognize, I think, the point about how fundamentally flawed our system is to push wealth to the top resulting in more and more extreme inequality. And our political difficulty recognizing the need for changing that, even if it's crudely increasing taxes on the rich.
I'd respond, but clearly - what's the point?Where as your theory is actually nothing more than just selfishness in disguise.
No one is stealing anything from anyone. The money spent by the poor on luxuries, goods and services go back to the big companies and into the pockets of the wealthy. Who then pay a living standard pay so that the poor have enough money to buy luxuries, goods and services. money can be spent to buy more more goods and services. It is how economies are suppose to work. They break down when the gap between the rich and poor gets to excessive.
This will probably offend but it has to be said. the part in bold is really annoying on the level of 101 economic students asking stupid questions annoying.
Get your head out of a theory and look around you. We are a consumer society. That is how capitalism works, by getting people to spend money.
Wow! Do you think the money once spent to buy something then magically disappears?????? I am going to love whatever excuse you give.
The subject matter here is wages earned, not charity.
Which they have every opportunity to get it back by selling them more crap. Where do you thing money goes when someone buys a new iphone?
That thinking always does appear. Wonderful that you want an economic system that starts with the premise that the poor are worthless. Not a chance that will lead to a revolution.
So your argument here is that it is justified for a person who has become wealthy from all that inspiring description of how to create wealth to then turn around and use that wealth to create poverty and the servitude that will go along with it? And do not tell me you did not say this. The context of your remark implies it.
You have a weird idea about the poor. Now they appear to have spare cash to invest. But in reality those paid less than a living standard are having to sometimes make decisions between buying shoes for the kids or food for dinner.
Or else what? You will come after them with guns and death. You wish to rule by fear as well as oppress the majority so the few can live in luxury. That is what actual theft is.
Be grateful, I do not often bother to break down what someone tells me. But yours is an economy that you need to think about more carefully. Your attitude to the poor is the problem here not the economics. Just as you want to paint the wealthy as honest and good so you must also treat the poor or else the bigotry is there for all to see.
But, wages are set almost entirely - outside the minimum wage and minimal laws - by the dictates of the owners.
People don't really appreciate just how much this mechanism of solely owner-set wages keeps wages down -
A chart showing the wishbone effect of the change:
Yep. $15/hr was the goal of a decade ago, maybe longer.$15 an hour is not enough. $35 per hour would barely make it.
Hasn't this idea already demonstrated itself as failed in history?Yep. $15/hr was the goal of a decade ago, maybe longer.
The actual goal should be a minimum wage based on the cost of living in an area, calculated to provide a minimal but comfortable standard of living.
Which is rapidly being consumed and destroyed by inflation, for one, and itself adds inflationary pressure.I think they call that a "living" wage.
Well you and your buddies can open up a bakery as a testYep. $15/hr was the goal of a decade ago, maybe longer.
The actual goal should be a minimum wage based on the cost of living in an area, calculated to provide a minimal but comfortable standard of living.
I think they call that a "living" wage.
god damn what moronic shit. The greedy are the scumbags taking all the wealthy while their workers are living in poverty. The billionaires while 50% of the country have no saving, millions on the brink of homelessness. As usual, a moronic right wing response is nothing but projectionGreed and envy are such ugly vices.
Those who persistently whine about wage disparities, or "living wages", or crap like this where the OP is trotting forth decades old arguments concerning productivity and wages - people knowing absolutely SQUAT about economics or the market, labor supply and demand and etc.
It is chilling though how those lies have eventually found foothold in our culture. The damage they promise to everyone's prosperity is incalculable...
...all because of greed and envy.
Such is when liberal / progressive / Democrat 'theories' hit business reality. They go broke.Well you and your buddies can open up a bakery as a test
Spend 30m just to put the basics in.....and those are second hand
Then pay all your employees $ 35 hour or higher.....
I want to see what your bread and muffins cost.....
If you last a year i will be surprised....6 months is my guess before the red stains everything
Hell i will send you some of my workers.....for $ 35 bucks an hour they will make bread....or eat it
Or whatever you want to make or sell.....best of luck going broke
Contrary to Liberal views, there has NEVER been any Laws that can Stop "LIBERALS" from creating, or owning businesses. So they canContrary to Republican views, wages can be too low. Most people like there to be some idea that the American economy can have prosperity somewhat shared so that at least most Americans are prosperous, not only 10% super-prosperous instead.
But, wages are set almost entirely - outside the minimum wage and minimal laws - by the dictates of the owners. This would itself result in too-low wages. Why wouldn't it?
One alternative would be for the government to dictate wages. This would raise them - but is a very unpopular idea and one with admitted flaws, so it has essentially no chance to happen.
The next thing to offset those low wages is 'the marketplace'. The idea that if employer 1 wants to pay very low wages, that employer 2 will offer a higher wage to 'compete' with employer 1.
https://giphy.com/MCndepawQqgCsgod damn what moronic shit. The greedy are the scumbags taking all the wealthy while their workers are living in poverty. The billionaires while 50% of the country have no saving, millions on the brink of homelessness. As usual, a moronic right wing response is nothing but projection
So you're saying that:Hasn't this idea already demonstrated itself as failed in history?
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" (German: Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen) is a slogan popularised by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Programme.[1][2] The principle refers to free access to and distribution of goods, capital and services.[3] In the Marxist view, such an arrangement will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a developed communist system will be capable to produce; the idea is that, with the full development of socialism and unfettered productive forces, there will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs.[4][5]
Who get's to decide this cost of living level and what 'a minimal but comfortable standard of living' is defined as?
Which is rapidly being consumed and destroyed by inflation, for one, and itself adds inflationary pressure.
It's time to ask the question 'And then what will result?' at least 5 times digging deeper in each posing of that question, rather than simply take yet another already proven failed progressive public policy prescription at face value.
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?