"The Pitchforks Are Coming… For Us Plutocrats"

[ATOMonkey]

It's really easy to test the minimum wage theory.

If $7.50 is ok and $15 is better, what about $30, what about $300? The same theory applies to any dollar amount, does it not?

If you're paying the "middle class" $300/hr wouldn't they make incredible consumers, which would promote job growth??

Obviously, all that would happen is that prices would increase and you'd be the same amount of poor with a lot more dollars.

To address Henry Ford. His business model of turning workers into consumers relied HEAVILY on the presumption that lots and lots of people who weren't his employees were also buying cars. Which they were. The 3,000 cars his workers bought every 2 or 3 years was a drop in the bucket compared to the total number that rolled off the Highland Park Plant assembly line. Paying higher wages ensured that people showed up to work everyday and worked all day. Why? There were 5 people waiting to replace any one person who was fired or quit.

 

[seedubs1]

Minimum wage should be based on living costs. Your argument is just reduction to absurdity, and is not valid.

It's really easy to test the minimum wage theory.

If $7.50 is ok and $15 is better, what about $30, what about $300? The same theory applies to any dollar amount, does it not?

If you're paying the "middle class" $300/hr wouldn't they make incredible consumers, which would promote job growth??

Obviously, all that would happen is that prices would increase and you'd be the same amount of poor with a lot more dollars.

To address Henry Ford. His business model of turning workers into consumers relied HEAVILY on the presumption that lots and lots of people who weren't his employees were also buying cars. Which they were. The 3,000 cars his workers bought every 2 or 3 years was a drop in the bucket compared to the total number that rolled off the Highland Park Plant assembly line. Paying higher wages ensured that people showed up to work everyday and worked all day. Why? There were 5 people waiting to replace any one person who was fired or quit.

 

[seedubs1]

Well typically a 5 year old has parents...

There's lots of unfit parents out there...And they shouldn't be able to decide whether their kid gets a good education or not.

 

[RockofStrength]

There's lots of unfit parents out there...And they shouldn't be able to decide whether their kid gets a good education or not.

Very well. Who should then? On what basis? What right would this arbitrator have to decide what is best for the child?

 

[mrjarrell]

Minimum wage should be based on living costs. Your argument is just reduction to absurdity, and is not valid.

While I agree that wages should be voluntarily raised, basing them on living costs would be a losing proposition. Something like the MW pegged to inflation (again, voluntarily) would be a better idea. Wages, (except for executives, by and large) have been stagnant, but inflation has risen steadily, as the dollar has fallen in value. Cost of living is too variable and some people have expensive tastes. That's not a good measure.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Minimum wage should be based on living costs. Your argument is just reduction to absurdity, and is not valid.

Well, sometimes people need a little absurdity to see the truth. Minimum wage is a price floor on labor. What happens to the price of goods and services when you introduce a price floor?? Bueller, Bueller...anyone? For bonus points, what happens to "living costs" when price floors are increased?

I anxiously await your answer.

 

[ATOMonkey]

While I agree that wages should be voluntarily raised, basing them on living costs would be a losing proposition. Something like the MW pegged to inflation (again, voluntarily) would be a better idea. Wages, (except for executives, by and large) have been stagnant, but inflation has risen steadily, as the dollar has fallen in value. Cost of living is too variable and some people have expensive tastes. That's not a good measure.

Pegging MW to inflation (depends on how you measure it), is pouring crazy gas on stupid fire. All that would do is accelerate both. The only reason inflation isn't any worse is becasue wages have stayed low.

How about we reign in inflation first? Then we can fix wages.

 

[RockofStrength]

While I agree that wages should be voluntarily raised, basing them on living costs would be a losing proposition. Something like the MW pegged to inflation (again, voluntarily) would be a better idea. Wages, (except for executives, by and large) have been stagnant, but inflation has risen steadily, as the dollar has fallen in value. Cost of living is too variable and some people have expensive tastes. That's not a good measure.

Would that not be likely to introduce the dreaded spectre of "stagflation"? Obviously if it were voluntary that would be less likely, but still.

 

[mrjarrell]

Would that not be likely to introduce the dreaded spectre of "stagflation"? Obviously if it were voluntary that would be less likely, but still.

I don't think a raise in wages would tip us anywhere near that point. We've seen study after study on what even a modest rise would bring us, (in terms of increased costs, etc) and they just aren't that big. I'd pay a few bucks more to eat out or a few cents more for an already pricy loaf of bread if it helped someone up an out and off the government teat. If things continue as they are the government will step in and do it themselves and that's not something we want, is it?

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

So much lack of understanding, drinking of various flavors of koolaid, ideological pollution. People are arguing past each other without in many cases realizing that they're not even using the same vocabulary.

One example. Inflation should not, ideally, "depend" on "how you measure it". The inflation rate that Social Security, for example, is based on is the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The CPI is supposedly the increase in cost of a "basket" of consumer goods that people buy. However, the contents of that basket have been adjusted several times, and it no longer contains such items as food and fuel, which are very decidedly things that consumers buy, and both of which have increased dramatically in price over the last few years. Have you tried to buy a steak lately? This allows the .gov to fraudulently report say, a 1% inflation rate, when it's more like 20% (just a SWAG). Your MW will still fall behind severely.

There is, unfortunately, not a single right thing to do that will fix everything. There are, however, wrong things to do, many of which have been done, and though none of them individually have broken everything, they've made it worse.

 

[actaeon277]

Minimum wage should be based on living costs. Your argument is just reduction to absurdity, and is not valid.

First, why resort to insults? People here are disagreeing, that happens. Make a point, or disprove a point.
By insulting you are just debasing the argument.
I disagree with you, but I'm not going to think its cause you are stupid.
Second, why does MW be based on living costs? What rule does that come from?
Some immigrants from socialists nations I know would like to know.

 

[mrjarrell]

Pegging MW to inflation (depends on how you measure it), is pouring crazy gas on stupid fire. All that would do is accelerate both. The only reason inflation isn't any worse is becasue wages have stayed low.

How about we reign in inflation first? Then we can fix wages.

We could do both at the same time, easily enough, as things are. Fixing our money is a big step, but that's not going to happen overnight or even in the next few years, (even if you guys got Ron Paul elected). It takes a good long time to correct monetary devaluation. Shoot, it we paid wages based on the value of what our money used to be valued at the MW should be about $20 bucks/hr. We are quite capable of multitasking the thing. Moderate wage increases won't harm the economy in any substantial form, but eventually the government will move on the issue as the workers ire rises. That we don't want. Neither party is willing to fix the economy, inflation or the money. At least the businesses can help move things along in a slightly better direction by paying enough to get people off of food stamps and medicaid. Most fast food jobs don't even count, as many of them, if not most are staffed by kids.

 

[seedubs1]

Are you missing the fact that you're already paying for it? The people working for low pay are utilizing all of the government subsidies they can. And that comes out of your taxes. Cut out the middle man (the gov.), and just pay the people a higher minimum wage.

and what's your argument for the past when the economy was booming? When adjusted for inflation, the middle class and the people on minimum wage were making more money than today, and the economy was better. This trickle down junk is flat out not working, and study after study shows it.

Well, sometimes people need a little absurdity to see the truth. Minimum wage is a price floor on labor. What happens to the price of goods and services when you introduce a price floor?? Bueller, Bueller...anyone? For bonus points, what happens to "living costs" when price floors are increased?

I anxiously await your answer.

 

[seedubs1]

Uh.....I'm not insulting him. "Reduction to absurdity" is a debate tactic. Google it. I just called him out on it.

First, why resort to insults? People here are disagreeing, that happens. Make a point, or disprove a point.
By insulting you are just debasing the argument.
I disagree with you, but I'm not going to think its cause you are stupid.
Second, why does MW be based on living costs? What rule does that come from?
Some immigrants from socialists nations I know would like to know.

 

[AA&E]

Expanding the workforce with uncheck illegal immigration has nothing to do with the disparity, is what the progressives will not admit

Absolute truth.

 

[AA&E]

Oh, I don't think China is a grand design at all. I'm only demonstrating the futility of I labor utopia you're wishing to force into being. That China is the manufacturing mecca is because they're willing to do it cheap and dirty and we aren't. Frankly, I'm quite fond of clean air. But you can't have everything. You can't manufacture everything here AND have affordable stuff AND have clean air AND pay everyone a minimum of $15/hour AND have American labor that is competitive with the rest of the world.

Yes. Walmart could pay their employees more. They SHOULD pay their employees more and they should treat them better. Companies that do that attract better, more loyal employees. I wish the Walton kids had more of their dad in them. But having the government enforce a minimum wage isn't going to create your utopia. And why can't you bring yourself to acknowledge that some industries can't exist under any viable business model paying a $15/hour minimum wage. So you're willing just not to have those industries?

Crikey. Some socialist douchebag writes a piece advocating a very arbitrary $15/hour minimum wage and every ****ing left wing moon beam socialist goes ape**** about THAT number, thinking that's THE number that will solve "income inequality".

Point me to where I suggested $15 an hour was my suggestion. I said more, never said how much more.

 

[AA&E]

I agree. Everything is intertwined in the economy. I just thought he had a good logical thought process behind it.

But I don't 100% agree with entrepreneurs taking all of the risks. A lot of the big money out there is old money. A lot of the .01%ers are born into it. For sure, there are self made ones, but not all. And once you get to a certain point, you don't need to take risks anymore. Your money can essentially not help the economy in any way, you can take essentially no statistical risk, and your money can still compound massively.

Take Walmart for example. The Walton family took the risks initially to start Walmart. Now their family continues to inherit the main share of the company even after the founders have died. They took no risk, and drain our government and economy, while their money continues to compound hand over fist. All the while, they pay their cashier employees that rely on their wages as a living wage (I'm not talking about kids working there in highschool to buy some bubble gum) an avg. of $8.53. That employee makes so little that they have to then rely on food stamps and other government subsidies just to keep afloat. In turn, when you buy anything from Walmart, you're not just paying the low prices for their cheap goods, part of your taxes are going to the subsidies to pay their underpaid employees because they can't make ends meet. In the end, you get screwed, and the Waltons rake in tons of money. The Waltons should be paying their employees a living wage so as to not be a drain on our economy. A raised minimum wage could mean that the Waltons make $10 Billion instead of $25 Billion a year. The $15 Billion they don't get wouldn't have gone into the economy anyway. However, if it goes to the lower middle class working at Walmart, it surely will go into the economy. I mean, seriously...we're literally talking about a family making $10 Billion vs. $25 Billion. Is there even a real difference there??? Are the now owners really "better" than anyone else that works hard other than lucking into an inherited massively successful business? Just some things to think about.

Well said. I agree completely.

 

[AA&E]

Well, sometimes people need a little absurdity to see the truth. Minimum wage is a price floor on labor. What happens to the price of goods and services when you introduce a price floor?? Bueller, Bueller...anyone? For bonus points, what happens to "living costs" when price floors are increased?

I anxiously await your answer.

How many people do you know that make minimum wage? Its isn't a significant percentage of the population and would have minimal impact on the economy. The sky is falling has been the cry everytime the minimum wage has risen, yet it has never transpired. Guess what? We arent buying what you are selling because its something we have lived through several times in our lives.

 

[AA&E]

First, why resort to insults? People here are disagreeing, that happens. Make a point, or disprove a point.
By insulting you are just debasing the argument.
I disagree with you, but I'm not going to think its cause you are stupid.
Second, why does MW be based on living costs? What rule does that come from?
Some immigrants from socialists nations I know would like to know.

What insult? He said his example was absurd, not him as a person....

 

[jamil]

Point me to where I suggested $15 an hour was my suggestion. I said more, never said how much more.

Well, let's nail it down then. Do you favor the government raising the minimum wage, and if so, to what do you think it should be raised?