$15 minimum wages looks like this

[Peter1469]

$15 minimum wage looks like this (http://kfor.com/2016/03/17/carls-jr-ceo-wants-to-try-automated-restaurant-where-customers-never-see-a-person/)


A CEO of a fast-food company is causing a stir on social media after claiming that he wants to create a fully automated restaurant.

[Crepitus]

Was gonna go that way anyway regardless what minimum wage did.

[Peter1469]

No it wasn't. It is a trade off.

[Green Arrow]

No it wasn't. It is a trade off.

If that were true, then the minimum wage being stagnant would lead to more human employment instead of increased automation, but the opposite has happened.

As technology evolves, automation will grow. Why? Because it's cheap. Keep minimum wage at $1 an hour and this guy will still fully automate his restaurant because the automation costs $1 less an hour to work.

[Peter1469]

If that were true, then the minimum wage being stagnant would lead to more human employment instead of increased automation, but the opposite has happened.

As technology evolves, automation will grow. Why? Because it's cheap. Keep minimum wage at $1 an hour and this guy will still fully automate his restaurant because the automation costs $1 less an hour to work.

Automation isn't that cheap. It is between $7.50 and $15 per hour.

[Crepitus]

No it wasn't. It is a trade off.
No it isn't. He said right there in the link that this was what his customers preferred, plus it's cheaper than current minimum after the initial investment, and considerably more hassle free.

[Green Arrow]

Automation isn't that cheap. It is between $7.50 and $15 per hour.

If that is true, why is it a "trade-off" if he'll be paying the same either way?

[Peter1469]

If that is true, why is it a "trade-off" if he'll be paying the same either way?


That is what a trade off is.

There would be no automation if workers didn't get paid past a certain point.

On my last Iraq tour we had Iraqi males building roads by hand. To keep them busy. They wanted American machines to help. I said no.

[zelmo1234]

What I don't under stand is if 15 dollars an hour is good for the country? why not 25 or 30 dollars and hour, would that not be better for the country??

What many on the left don't understand is automation is a numbers game. When it becomes cheaper over the long run to have automation, then it is going to happen. If you are making 8 or 9 dollars an hour, it is likely to happen slower than 15 dollars and hour, and if you are making 7.25 it is going to be even slower

Business is not run of warm fuzz's and feelings, it is run on the bottom line and market share, in other words Numbers matter. When you change on of the factors and the numbers go up, they need to go down in another area

[Polecat]

Like I said. Globalists do not need 7 billion people.

[Tahuyaman]

What I don't under stand is if 15 dollars an hour is good for the country? why not 25 or 30 dollars and hour, would that not be better for the country?

Ive asked that question many times myself. I've never received an answer

[domer76]

Automation isn't that cheap. It is between $7.50 and $15 per hour.

$8.00 an hour, no benefits, 24/7 with no calling in sick

[domer76]

Ive asked that question many times myself. I've never received an answer

Reasonable people tend to not reply to stupid questions.

[Crepitus]

What I don't under stand is if 15 dollars an hour is good for the country? why not 25 or 30 dollars and hour, would that not be better for the country??

What many on the left don't understand is automation is a numbers game. When it becomes cheaper over the long run to have automation, then it is going to happen. If you are making 8 or 9 dollars an hour, it is likely to happen slower than 15 dollars and hour, and if you are making 7.25 it is going to be even slower

Business is not run of warm fuzz's and feelings, it is run on the bottom line and market share, in other words Numbers matter. When you change on of the factors and the numbers go up, they need to go down in another area


I've asked that question many times myself. I've never received an answer
Because nobody wants to deny the businessman a profit, they just don't think he should make it by starving the workers to the point where the government has to feed them.

[Tahuyaman]

Because nobody wants to deny the businessman a profit, they just don't think he should make it by starving the workers to the point where the government has to feed them.
So, why is $15.00 per hour better than $20.00 or $25.00? Have you studied the issue to determine how much all businesses can afford?

Is $15.00 an hour just a symbolic number thrown out to make certain people feel good about themselves or what? Why not feel better by going for $20.00.

How how much can a small family owned restaurant pay their staff and remain in business which will provide the owner enough of a living to pay his bills and have a life too?

[decedent]

The moral of this story, kids, is if you pay your employees chitty wages, you won't get automation. I mean, you'll get a union, but at least it won't be automated.

[Tahuyaman]

Reasonable people tend to not reply to stupid questions.

maybe that's why you rarely receive any response to anything other than someone telling you to shut up?

[kilgram]

No it wasn't. It is a trade off.

It was the tendency. Obvioulsy earlier or later that would have happened.

Automation is going to take off many jobs.

[domer76]

maybe that's why you rarely receive any response to anything other than someone telling you to shut up?

It's a stupid fucking question with an obvious answer and I don't give a shit whether you respond or not.

[Crepitus]

So, why is $15.00 per hour better than $20.00 or $25.00? Have you studied the issue to determine how much all businesses can afford?

Is $15.00 an hour just a symbolic number thrown out to make certain people feel good about themselves or what? Why not feel better by going for $20.00.

How how much can a small family owned restaurant pay their staff and remain in business which will provide the owner enough of a living to pay his bills and have a life too?
Do you know the answer to these questions?

[Tahuyaman]

Posted by zelmo123

What I don't under stand is if 15 dollars an hour is good for the country? why not 25 or 30 dollars and hour, would that not be better for the country


As one can clearly see, the liberals really can't answer the question. The $15.00 an hour minimum wage is just an arbitrary number thrown out there for the sake of feelings. They just say that they want people to earn more without denying the business owner a profit. They have no researched data to back up their view.

When you show them how small family owned businesses have had to close down because they can't pay those wages and stay in business, they just shrug their shoulders, or deny the facts.

Of course there's always the truly clueless one who just respond by saying its a stupid question. But then that's the type of person who's never provided anything meaningful to any discussion.

[Tahuyaman]

Do you know the answer to these questions?


No I don't. That's usually why someone asks a question.

Now, why don't you tell me why you believe a $15.00 an hour minimum wage is better for everyone than a $20.00 an hour minimum wage?

Also, why should a minimum wage be a federal issue? Is it appropriate for New Your city and Pueblo, Colorado to have the same wage scale for entry level employment?

[Crepitus]

No I don't. That's usually why someone asks a question.

Now, why don't you tell me why you believe a $15.00 an hour minimum wage is better for everyone than a $20.00 an hour minimum wage?

Also, why should a minimum wage be a federal issue? Is it appropriate for New Your city and Pueblo, Colorado to have the same wage scale for entry level employment?
I actually don't. Since it's been a political campaign issue I had assumed (I know,I know) that someone somewhere has done some research or studies to come up with the figure.

[Tahuyaman]

I actually don't. Since it's been a political campaign issue I had assumed (I know,I know) that someone somewhere has done some research or studies to come up with the figure.

And that's my point. No one can provide any researched and studied reason why $15.00 an hour is the number vs $18.00, $20.00 or $25.00 an hour.

Feelings and emotions are driving the issue.

[Crepitus]

And that's my point. No one can provide any researched and studied reason why $15.00 an hour is the number vs $18.00, $20.00 or $25.00 an hour.

Feelings and emotions are driving the issue.
Here's an interesting research paper (http://cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage1-2012-03.pdf)

Makes sense to me:


Between the end of World War II and 1968, the minimum wage tracked average productivity growth fairly closely. Since 1968,however, productivity growth has far outpaced the minimum wage. If the minimum wage had continued to move with average productivity after 1968, it would have reached $21.72 per hour in 2012 – a rate well above the average production worker wage. If minimum-wage workers received only half of the productivity gains over the period, the federal minimum would be $15.34. Even if the minimum wage only grew at one-fourth the rate of productivity, in 2012 it would be set at $12.25.


Google is your friend!! :grin:

[Tahuyaman]

Does google explain why a federal minimum wage is necessary, or why the wages for unslikked entry level work should be the same in NYC as they are in Bend, Oregon?

[Tahuyaman]

Why do liberals always support a "one size fits all" federal based solution to every issue?

[Peter1469]

Like I said. Globalists do not need 7 billion people.

That is true.

[Peter1469]

$8.00 an hour, no benefits, 24/7 with no calling in sick

Get an education in a skill worth something.

[Tahuyaman]

How many do they need? 3 billion? 4 billion? 600 million?

[zelmo1234]

$8.00 an hour, no benefits, 24/7 with no calling in sick

Yes but that is not entirely true, machines break and need upkeep, and they people that do that? make 40+ an hour.

So there is a trade off. The left understands this perfectly, and they understand that 15 dollars an hour is going to put a lot of people out of work. Which you would Think would be a bad thing? but if you goal is to stay in power and to have a class war, which brings most of the wealthy down and leaves you with Absolute power? Having a lot of people out of work, dependent on the Government, with NO way out, is a really good thing.

When you look at what the left and Right Establishment want, it is not hard to see why they do and say what they do?

For Example, do you really think that the ACA was designed to improve the Healthcare system and allow cheaper and more access???? If it was, both sides would be screaming for it to be changed. But it never was about healthcare of the people, It was a TAX and one that made things worse, but put the government in control of who is allowed access to the system. When you look at it this way, it is easy to see why the Establishment Democrats are happy with it, and why the Establishment Republicans will not defund the program.

[Tahuyaman]

Get an education in a skill worth something.

For some it's easier to not apply yourself and eke by, then complain about your lot in life and demand to receive the benefits from the achievements of others. Then scream and yell when the achievers push back and say enough.

[zelmo1234]

Reasonable people tend to not reply to stupid questions.

And people on the left that understand that 15 dollars an hour minimum is a horrible thing for low skilled worker, many of whom are minority. And don't want to have to answer that 25 is too much and would cost too many jobs. Because they know that 15 will cost a lot of people jobs too. When you base you agenda on the need to lie. It is easy to see why liberals will not answer questions. The Real reason is they know and understand that their policies hurt people, and they don't care.

[Crepitus]

Does google explain why a federal minimum wage is necessary, or why the wages for unslikked entry level work should be the same in NYC as they are in Bend, Oregon?
You are redirecting. Would you care to comment on the study I posted?

[zelmo1234]

Because nobody wants to deny the businessman a profit, they just don't think he should make it by starving the workers to the point where the government has to feed them.

So how much is too much profit? should he be denied that ability to purchase new equipment, or do research and development? How much is too much?

Of course you realize that there are only about 100 fast food eateries in the USA that can remain profitable with a 15 dollar minimum wage? What about those owners are they making too much too?

[del]

Yes but that is not entirely true, machines break and need upkeep, and they people that do that? make 40+ an hour.

So there is a trade off. The left understands this perfectly, and they understand that 15 dollars an hour is going to put a lot of people out of work. Which you would Think would be a bad thing? but if you goal is to stay in power and to have a class war, which brings most of the wealthy down and leaves you with Absolute power? Having a lot of people out of work, dependent on the Government, with NO way out, is a really good thing.

When you look at what the left and Right Establishment want, it is not hard to see why they do and say what they do?

For Example, do you really think that the ACA was designed to improve the Healthcare system and allow cheaper and more access???? If it was, both sides would be screaming for it to be changed. But it never was about healthcare of the people, It was a TAX and one that made things worse, but put the government in control of who is allowed access to the system. When you look at it this way, it is easy to see why the Establishment Democrats are happy with it, and why the Establishment Republicans will not defund the program.

lie.

[zelmo1234]

The moral of this story, kids, is if you pay your employees chitty wages, you won't get automation. I mean, you'll get a union, but at least it won't be automated.

There was a Electrolux Refrigerator Factory in Greenville MI. They were one of the last popular price Refrigerator Factories in the USA. most others had already moved to Mexico. The average wage in the factory was just over or under 18 dollars and hour. The ownership met with the Union and workers and told them that they needed to get the average under 16.50 through early retirement and pay and cuts. The workers would also have to pay 2% more of their benefits package. The Union went on strike, and they signed a new contract with even higher wages, but about 30 days after they signed the contract the company announced that it was building a factory in Mexico and would be closing operations in 8 months. Most of those people are now working for under 12 dollars and hour and have shitty benefits packages. So that Union thing Really worked out well for those 2700 families.

We have a global economy, that means that you have to be able to sell at or near the same price. when there is no profit left? Then the company closes or moves

[zelmo1234]

lie.

Why don't you see what a service call cost on an automated machine. Del you could pour piss out of a boot if the directions were on the bottom of the heal?

What do you think service techs make 7.25????

[sachem]

I made $1.85 an hour on my first job. Before the flood.

[Peter1469]

I worked for minimum wage in high school. I also lived at home and my only bill was car insurance.

[Crepitus]

So how much is too much profit? should he be denied that ability to purchase new equipment, or do research and development? How much is too much?

Of course you realize that there are only about 100 fast food eateries in the USA that can remain profitable with a 15 dollar minimum wage? What about those owners are they making too much too?
WHere are you getting this number from?

[Crepitus]

Yes but that is not entirely true, machines break and need upkeep, and they people that do that? make 40+ an hour.

So there is a trade off. The left understands this perfectly, and they understand that 15 dollars an hour is going to put a lot of people out of work. Which you would Think would be a bad thing? but if you goal is to stay in power and to have a class war, which brings most of the wealthy down and leaves you with Absolute power? Having a lot of people out of work, dependent on the Government, with NO way out, is a really good thing.

When you look at what the left and Right Establishment want, it is not hard to see why they do and say what they do?

For Example, do you really think that the ACA was designed to improve the Healthcare system and allow cheaper and more access???? If it was, both sides would be screaming for it to be changed. But it never was about healthcare of the people, It was a TAX and one that made things worse, but put the government in control of who is allowed access to the system. When you look at it this way, it is easy to see why the Establishment Democrats are happy with it, and why the Establishment Republicans will not defund the program.
Not true. The company they work for charges $40 an hour. the tech doesn't make that.

[decedent]

There was a Electrolux Refrigerator Factory in Greenville MI. They were one of the last popular price Refrigerator Factories in the USA. most others had already moved to Mexico. The average wage in the factory was just over or under 18 dollars and hour. The ownership met with the Union and workers and told them that they needed to get the average under 16.50 through early retirement and pay and cuts. The workers would also have to pay 2% more of their benefits package. The Union went on strike, and they signed a new contract with even higher wages, but about 30 days after they signed the contract the company announced that it was building a factory in Mexico and would be closing operations in 8 months. Most of those people are now working for under 12 dollars and hour and have $#@!ty benefits packages. So that Union thing Really worked out well for those 2700 families.

We have a global economy, that means that you have to be able to sell at or near the same price. when there is no profit left? Then the company closes or moves

Isn't it an amazing time to be alive? I mean, employment is as low as it gets and we can still buy all kinds cheap refrigerators. It's almost like this globalism thing is working out. Maybe all factories should leave?



The Union went on strike...


Calm down, Bon Jovi.

[zelmo1234]

WHere are you getting this number from?

The only ones that have high profit margins are the ones that are in special locations. Air Ports ect. The average franchise owner makes about 250K per year. the increase to 15 dollars an hour is about 400K per year. Based on average hours. Now sure you can raise prices a little? But not much, because face it people are not eating there because of the quality of the food. So at best you could break even? how many people are going to stay in business? Not many.

[zelmo1234]

Isn't it an amazing time to be alive? I mean, employment is as low as it gets and we can still buy all kinds cheap refrigerators. It's almost like this globalism thing is working out. Maybe all factories should leave?

Calm down, Bon Jovi.

I though things sucked and the 99% were getting the shaft? I can't keep things straight with you liberals One day those darn 1%ers are ripping everyone off? Next day everything is coming up roses?

Wonder what the difference is?? You don't think liberals are dishonest do you???

[Crepitus]

The only ones that have high profit margins are the ones that are in special locations. Air Ports ect. The average franchise owner makes about 250K per year. the increase to 15 dollars an hour is about 400K per year. Based on average hours. Now sure you can raise prices a little? But not much, because face it people are not eating there because of the quality of the food. So at best you could break even? how many people are going to stay in business? Not many.
The average fast food place has 27 full time minimum wage employees?

[decedent]

I though things sucked and the 99% were getting the shaft? I can't keep things straight with you liberals One day those darn 1%ers are ripping everyone off? Next day everything is coming up roses?

Wonder what the difference is?? You don't think liberals are dishonest do you???

I dunno, do things suck? I never made that claim.

Since we're talking about refrigerators, here's what I know: with a median household income of $3,900 and refrigerators costing $329, not many Americans could afford a fridge in the 50s. Today, with the median household income of $53,657 and fridges costing not much more, times may seem good. But here's the thing: it can be even better. Since the late 60s, the gini index has steadily increased. Consequently, the gap between the rich and poor has widened. The rich are richer largely due to lower taxes on the rich. This wealth has trickled up, rather than down. For example. back then, in 1969, the 1% owned only 8% of the wealth; today they own 20%.

Washington is to blame. Laws have reduced taxes and segregated wealth, resulting in the highest concentration of wealth in American history. Lobbyists and interest groups encourage Congress to create laws to reduce taxes. Essentially, Washington is bought by the rich.

Look at the number of tax laws tabled by Congress in 2013:

https://horseradish.s3.amazonaws.com/CACHE/images/photos/96/02/40009f8a4cbf/Figure-1--pie-800.png


With the help of Congress, relative deprivation has increased wildly. While consumer goods are cheap and plentiful in late modernity, some things like housing and tuition are not so cheap, and young people are struggling. 1 in 6 Americans face hunger, despite the average wealth of the nation. This income disparity is what the 1 percent is fighting, and it starts with Washington.

[del]

Why don't you see what a service call cost on an automated machine. Del you could pour piss out of a boot if the directions were on the bottom of the heal?

What do you think service techs make 7.25????

let me explain the idea of burdened rate to you.

nah, you wouldn't get it.

if you think the guy with screwdriver is making $40+/hr, you really shouldn't be out running around loose without a minder.

[del]

WHere are you getting this number from?

a damp, dark place conveniently located within arm's reach.

[Archer0915]

K, I am the certified industrial engineer here and I can tell you that wages and profit margins are the issue. Blame the stockholders for it if you like. Take command of your blind investment or just deal.

I also have a business degree and I can tell you hat that increased wage means the company is also paying out more FICA:
The Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) is the federal law that requires you to withhold three separate taxes from the wages (http://www.bizfilings.com/toolkit/sbg/tax-info/payroll-taxes/what-constitutes-taxable-compensation.aspx)you pay your employees (http://www.bizfilings.com/toolkit/sbg/tax-info/payroll-taxes/employee-or-independent-contractor-payroll-tax.aspx). FICA is comprised of:

a 6.2 percent Social Security tax;
a 1.45 percent Medicare tax (the “regular” Medicare tax); and
beginning in 2013, a 0.9 percent Medicare surtax when the employee earns over $200,000.
The profits are high due to volume not individual sales. All the profit goes out the window with a high wage.

[Tahuyaman]

You are redirecting. Would you care to comment on the study I posted?

the study you posted just explains how today's minimum wage compares to one decades ago as far as productivity is concerned. Its meaningless.

[domer76]

Get an education in a skill worth something.

You seem to not understand my post. Nothing unusual.

[domer76]

And people on the left that understand that 15 dollars an hour minimum is a horrible thing for low skilled worker, many of whom are minority. And don't want to have to answer that 25 is too much and would cost too many jobs. Because they know that 15 will cost a lot of people jobs too. When you base you agenda on the need to lie. It is easy to see why liberals will not answer questions. The Real reason is they know and understand that their policies hurt people, and they don't care.

Since you were posting a stupid question, why did you stop at $30-40 per hour being better for the country than $15? Go for the total idiocy of say, $300-400.

[Peter1469]

If you are going to stop being a satirist, at least get your facts straight. :wink:
I dunno, do things suck? I never made that claim.

Since we're talking about refrigerators, here's what I know: with a median household income of $3,900 and refrigerators costing $329, not many Americans could afford a fridge in the 50s. Today, with the median household income of $53,657 and fridges costing not much more, times may seem good. But here's the thing: it can be even better. Since the late 60s, the gini index has steadily increased. Consequently, the gap between the rich and poor has widened. The rich are richer largely due to lower taxes on the rich. This wealth has trickled up, rather than down. For example. back then, in 1969, the 1% owned only 8% of the wealth; today they own 20%.

Washington is to blame. Laws have reduced taxes and segregated wealth, resulting in the highest concentration of wealth in American history. Lobbyists and interest groups encourage Congress to create laws to reduce taxes. Essentially, Washington is bought by the rich.

Look at the number of tax laws tabled by Congress in 2013:

https://horseradish.s3.amazonaws.com/CACHE/images/photos/96/02/40009f8a4cbf/Figure-1--pie-800.png


With the help of Congress, relative deprivation has increased wildly. While consumer goods are cheap and plentiful in late modernity, some things like housing and tuition are not so cheap, and young people are struggling. 1 in 6 Americans face hunger, despite the average wealth of the nation. This income disparity is what the 1 percent is fighting, and it starts with Washington.

[Green Arrow]

Quite frankly, all these arguments against the minimum wage at this point really validate the biggest argument FOR the minimum wage, an argument the anti-minimum wage side claims is false: that without minimum wage, employers would pay far, far, far below the minimum wage.

[decedent]

If you are going to stop being a satirist, at least get your facts straight. :wink:

Which fact isn't straight?

[Peter1469]

Quite frankly, all these arguments against the minimum wage at this point really validate the biggest argument FOR the minimum wage, an argument the anti-minimum wage side claims is false: that without minimum wage, employers would pay far, far, far below the minimum wage.

I doubt that. If an employer didn't pay market wages they would not have employees.

[Peter1469]

I doubt that. If an employer didn't pay market wages they would not have employees.

Your entire take on inequality.

Stick with satire. You are really good at it.

[Crepitus]

the study you posted just explains how today's minimum wage compares to one decades ago as far as productivity is concerned. Its meaningless.

Actually it goes far beyond that. All you read was the clip right?

Regardless how is that meaningless?

[Crepitus]

I doubt that. If an employer didn't pay market wages they would not have employees.

Why would you underestimate the venality of the average employer when one of the big arguments against minimum wages is that employees are too greedy? Isn't that a bit disingenuous?

[Crepitus]

Your entire take on inequality.

Stick with satire. You are really good at it.

I don't actually see anything inaccurate there.

[Tahuyaman]

Your entire take on inequality.

Stick with satire. You are really good at it.

Unfortunately, it's not satire. It's what he really believes.

[Peter1469]

Why would you underestimate the venality of the average employer when one of the big arguments against minimum wages is that employees are too greedy? Isn't that a bit disingenuous?

Because nobody makes that argument.

[Peter1469]

I don't actually see anything inaccurate there.

Oh?

[Tahuyaman]

Because nobody makes that argument.


Well, he makes that argument, so.......?

[Peter1469]

Well, he makes that argument, so.......?

It is a straw man argument.

[Green Arrow]

I doubt that. If an employer didn't pay market wages they would not have employees.

If every employer does that, the market wages will be well below what minimum wage is now.

[Peter1469]

If every employer does that, the market wages will be well below what minimum wage is now.


Employers don't hold all of the cards.

[Green Arrow]

Employers don't hold all of the cards.

Who else does?

[Tahuyaman]

It is a straw man argument.


It is, but I'm sure that he either can't or won't recognize that.

[Peter1469]

Who else does?

The potential work force.

If the government didn't mandate a minimum wage, it is very likely you wouldn't see any changes at all in wages. Perhaps for teens who could work for less money (who live at home with no bills).

[Green Arrow]

The potential work force.

If the government didn't mandate a minimum wage, it is very likely you wouldn't see any changes at all in wages. Perhaps for teens who could work for less money (who live at home with no bills).

The only control the workforce has is in years when the economy is good enough that there are more jobs than workers, where we can easily just switch jobs if the one we have sucks. The problem is we can't really do that now because there are more workers than there are jobs.

[Crepitus]

Because nobody makes that argument.

Sure they do. The die hard conservative types here are always saying how the minimum wage types want something for nothing. Doesn't that equate to calling them.greedy?

[Crepitus]

Oh?

Please point out you specific issues with it?

[del]

if minimum wage had kept up with inflation, the $1.65/hr i made in 1970 would be $10.30/hr now.

[Crepitus]

It is a straw man argument.

I'll tell you the same thing I always tell Chris: "Just because you don't agree doesn't make it a straw man".

[Crepitus]

if minimum wage had kept up with inflation, the $1.65/hr i made in 1970 would be $10.30/hr now.

Yup.

[Crepitus]

The potential work force.

If the government didn't mandate a minimum wage, it is very likely you wouldn't see any changes at all in wages. Perhaps for teens who could work for less money (who live at home with no bills).

So even you see decreasing wages with no federal minimum

[Green Arrow]

if minimum wage had kept up with inflation, the $1.65/hr i made in 1970 would be $10.30/hr now.

Which is what it should be now.

That's why I support policies to tie the minimum wage to inflation. Maybe then the anti-minimum wage folks would be less inclined to support policies that increase inflation. Inflation goes down, cost of living goes down and the money we make is worth more. Everybody's happy.

[Peter1469]

The only control the workforce has is in years when the economy is good enough that there are more jobs than workers, where we can easily just switch jobs if the one we have sucks. The problem is we can't really do that now because there are more workers than there are jobs.

Sure there are going to be times when employers have more bargaining power than employees, but the market prices are not dropping below current minimum wage laws.

[Peter1469]

Sure they do. The die hard conservative types here are always saying how the minimum wage types want something for nothing. Doesn't that equate to calling them.greedy?

Straw man. That is not an argument put forth seriously.

We all understand that if I hire someone to sweep my floor they should expect a modest wage. If I am hired for legal advice I don't expect a modest wage. The person I hire to sweep my floor will get a fair wage for what they offer.

[Green Arrow]

Sure there are going to be times when employers have more bargaining power than employees, but the market prices are not dropping below current minimum wage laws.

We don't know that, because minimum wage exists. What we do have is historical record of what America looked like before the minimum wage and it is not a pretty picture. Not for American workers, anyway.

[Peter1469]

Please point out you specific issues with it?


Washington is to blame. Laws have reduced taxes and segregated wealth, resulting in the highest concentration of wealth in American history. Lobbyists and interest groups encourage Congress to create laws to reduce taxes. Essentially, Washington is bought by the rich.


That part. The entire premise is incorrect. We have the most prosperous society in world history. And all of these inequality topics are based of Thomas Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century. Although he has done more research than any economist in history he is incorrect. He fails to take into account money provided to the lower classes through welfare programs and he fails to consider that much income shifted from corporate income taxes to personal income taxes. After you consider those two things inequality is not so horrible as claimed.

[Peter1469]

if minimum wage had kept up with inflation, the $1.65/hr i made in 1970 would be $10.30/hr now.

That is under $15 per hour.

[Peter1469]

I'll tell you the same thing I always tell Chris: "Just because you don't agree doesn't make it a straw man".

Correct. That is not what a straw man is.

[Peter1469]

So even you see decreasing wages with no federal minimum

I said $15 is too high.

There are two arguments here. Should their be a federal minimum wage. If so what is the correct amount.

Since the cost of living varies we should have minimum wages set locally. I think the market handles it just fine.

[Peter1469]

Which is what it should be now.

That's why I support policies to tie the minimum wage to inflation. Maybe then the anti-minimum wage folks would be less inclined to support policies that increase inflation. Inflation goes down, cost of living goes down and the money we make is worth more. Everybody's happy.

The market does that on its own. Most minimum wage laws have very little relevance. The vast majority of work is worth higher than current levels. But again, $15 an hour will destroy low skilled work.

[Peter1469]

We don't know that, because minimum wage exists. What we do have is historical record of what America looked like before the minimum wage and it is not a pretty picture. Not for American workers, anyway.

I agree that there were abuses in the past.

[Crepitus]

Straw man. That is not an argument put forth seriously.

We all understand that if I hire someone to sweep my floor they should expect a modest wage. If I am hired for legal advice I don't expect a modest wage. The the person I hire to sweep my floor will get a fair wage for what they offer.

Not a straw man. It is an argument I put forth very seriously. So you hire someone to sweep the floor in your office, who determines what is a fair wage?

[Crepitus]

Washington is to blame. Laws have reduced taxes and segregated wealth, resulting in the highest concentration of wealth in American history. Lobbyists and interest groups encourage Congress to create laws to reduce taxes. Essentially, Washington is bought by the rich.


That part. The entire premise is incorrect. We have the most prosperous society in world history. And all of these inequality topics are based of Thomas Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century. Although he has done more research than any economist in history he is incorrect. He fails to take into account money provided to the lower classes through welfare programs and he fails to consider that much income shifted from corporate income taxes to personal income taxes. After you consider those two things inequality is not so horrible as claimed.

I'm sorry but I disagree. If the problem is not so large then where did the middle class go?

[Peter1469]

Not a straw man. It is an argument I put forth very seriously. So you hire someone to sweep the floor in your office, who determines what is a fair wage?

In general the market does. I research the issue and see what others are paying for the same services in my area.

For example, to get maid service for a 1 bed room apartment in Arlington, Virginia, it is worth around $90 for one cleaning service per month. If I only want to pay $80 here I won't get service. (I discount hiring illegals).

[Crepitus]

Correct. That is not what a straw man is.

Correct. A straw man is an argument from false or exaggerated premise. If my premise is exaggerated then why did unions develop?

[Peter1469]

I'm sorry but I disagree. If the problem is not so large then where did the middle class go?

A good bit rose to the upper classes.

But I do agree if we fixed our tax code more would do better.

[Green Arrow]

I agree that there were abuses in the past.

What's to stop those abuses from happening in the present? If they happened then, why not now?

[Peter1469]

Correct. A straw man is an argument from false or exaggerated premise. If my premise is exaggerated then why did unions develop?

As the US moved from an agrarian society to an industrial society there were abuses.

In general I think unions in the private sector can be good so long as they don't over reach. There should be no public sector unions. That is one thing that I agree with FDR about.

[Crepitus]

I said $15 is too high.

There are two arguments here. Should their be a federal minimum wage. If so what is the correct amount.

Since the cost of living varies we should have minimum wages set locally. I think the market handles it just fine.

As long as people with jobs qualify for food stamps the market is not handling it.

[Peter1469]

What's to stop those abuses from happening in the present? If they happened then, why not now?

Times change. The market won't allow of sweat-shop wages. People just will opt out.

[Crepitus]

In general the market does. I research the issue and see what others are paying for the same services in my area.

For example, to get maid service for a 1 bed room apartment in Arlington, Virginia, it is worth around $90 for one cleaning service per month. If I only want to pay $80 here I won't get service. (I discount hiring illegals).

Illegals aside I'm willing to bet if you shop around you can find someone who does it for the $80 or even less.

[Green Arrow]

The market does that on its own. Most minimum wage laws have very little relevance. The vast majority of work is worth higher than current levels. But again, $15 an hour will destroy low skilled work.

And yet it didn't prior to the institution of the minimum wage in 1938.

[Peter1469]

As long as people with jobs qualify for food stamps the market is not handling it.

Why?

It is better to subsidies unskilled labor than have people completely on the dole. We even have people talking seriously about a living wage provided to anyone with a pulse.

[Crepitus]

A good bit rose to the upper classes.

But I do agree if we fixed our tax code more would do better.

I haven't seen any evidence of that. Do you have anything to support your claim?

[Green Arrow]

Times change. The market won't allow of sweat-shop wages. People just will opt out.

Opt out...how? Abolish all laws regulating business today, including the minimum wage, and the market decides the slave wages of pre-1938 were just dandy. How do I opt out of that? Every business is paying that shit wage except businesses I can't work at due to qualifications.

How do I opt out?

[Crepitus]

As the US moved from an agrarian society to an industrial society there were abuses.

In general I think unions in the private sector can be good so long as they don't over reach. There should be no public sector unions. That is one thing that I agree with FDR about.

If there were abuses then why do you think there wouldn't be now?

[Peter1469]

Illegals aside I'm willing to bet if you shop around you can find someone who does it for the $80 or even less.

$90 was on the low end of my research. Granted, I only looked at companies with insurance. It isn't worth it to me to hire someone cheap and come home to fine the silver missing. :wink:

[Peter1469]

And yet it didn't prior to the institution of the minimum wage in 1938.

I already conceded the abuses of the past.

[Green Arrow]

Why?

It is better to subsidies unskilled labor than have people completely on the dole. We even have people talking seriously about a living wage provided to anyone with a pulse.

That was Thomas Paine's idea back in 1797, and he was one of the most freedom-loving freedom lovers out there, without whom the revolution may never have been successful.

[Crepitus]

Why?

It is better to subsidies unskilled labor than have people completely on the dole. We even have people talking seriously about a living wage provided to anyone with a pulse.

Are we subsidising the employees or the business owner?

[Crepitus]

$90 was on the low end of my research. Granted, I only looked at companies with insurance. It isn't worth it to me to hire someone cheap and come home to fine the silver missing. :wink:

So the company at $80 is already under cutting the one at $90? We are already racing to the bottom.

[Peter1469]

I haven't seen any evidence of that. Do you have anything to support your claim?

Most economic news is pretty depressing since the 2008 crash, but this article (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/09/the-american-middle-class-is-losing-ground/) (even the title is bad) shows it despite the overall tone:


In at least one sense, the shift represents economic progress: While the share of U.S. adults living in both upper- and lower-income households rose alongside the declining share in the middle from 1971 to 2015, the share in the upper-income tier grew more.

[Peter1469]

So the company at $80 is already under cutting the one at $90? We are already racing to the bottom.


My research did not find that price. That would be a straw man.

[Peter1469]

Are we subsidising the employees or the business owner?

Employees. You push the burden onto employers and jobs tend to disappear.

[Crepitus]

$90 was on the low end of my research. Granted, I only looked at companies with insurance. It isn't worth it to me to hire someone cheap and come home to fine the silver missing. :wink:

BTW I get 4 times for $200 here in Kansas.

[Peter1469]

That was Thomas Paine's idea back in 1797, and he was one of the most freedom-loving freedom lovers out there, without whom the revolution may never have been successful.


I honestly don't know what his view was on that particular issue. He was not well liked in life.

[Crepitus]

Employees. You push the burden onto employers and jobs tend to disappear.

We are subsidising the business owner by allowing him to pay less than a living wage.

[Peter1469]

BTW I get 4 times for $200 here in Kansas.

And my condo cost me $300K for 1300 sq ft. 2 miles outside of the beltway.

What would that buy me in Kansas? :wink:

[Crepitus]

My research did not find that price. That would be a straw man.

You said the $80 was on the low end of your research. There was no one charging $90?

[Peter1469]

We are subsidising the business owner by allowing him to pay less than a living wage.

Free market economics does not really use that term. Markets set wages based on value. Other types of economic systems use the term living wage . Such as socialism and communism.

[Peter1469]

You said the $80 was on the low end of your research. There was no one charging $90?

If you got that impression that was a mistake. $90 was the low end. I did not find any companies with insured employers who offered less.

[Green Arrow]

I honestly don't know what his view was on that particular issue.

Agrarian Justice is the title of a pamphlet written by Thomas Paine and published in 1797, which proposed that those who possess cultivated land owe the community a ground rent, and that this justifies an estate tax to fund universal old-age and disability pensions, as well as a fixed sum to be paid to all citizens upon reaching maturity.


He was not well liked in life.

And his likability is relevant...how? Adolf Hitler was very well-liked for quite some time. Jesus was fairly universally despised.

[Crepitus]

And my condo cost be $300K for 1300 sq ft. 2 miles outside of the beltway.

What would that buy me in Kansas? :wink:

Pretty much all of it. My home is 2300 SF 4 br 2 ba on 1/4 acre in the preferred school districts. Cost $135.000. That was 14 years ago though.

[Green Arrow]

You said the $80 was on the low end of your research. There was no one charging $90?

I think you misunderstood his point. His point was that the low end was $90, so if he paid $80 he wouldn't get any workers. Not that $80 was the low end.

[Crepitus]

If you got that impression that was a mistake. $90 was the low end. I did not find any companies with insured employers who offered less.

Ok, my mistake. The company charging $90 is undercutting a company charging $100. Better?

[Peter1469]

Agrarian Justice is the title of a pamphlet written by Thomas Paine and published in 1797, which proposed that those who possess cultivated land owe the community a ground rent, and that this justifies an estate tax to fund universal old-age and disability pensions, as well as a fixed sum to be paid to all citizens upon reaching maturity.



And his likability is relevant...how? Adolf Hitler was very well-liked for quite some time. Jesus was fairly universally despised.
Paine was so radical that he drove off all supporters before his death (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paine/).

[Peter1469]

Ok, my mistake. The company charging $90 is undercutting a company charging $100. Better?

Yes. That is why I hired the $90 company. :smiley: Although I no longer use them. Saving money.

[Green Arrow]

Paine was so radical that he drove off all supporters before his death (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paine/).

There's a good thread topic. Why is being "radical" such a bad thing? I realize there are circumstances where it can be, such as if your radicalism inspires violence (like radical Islam), but just the idea of having beliefs considered "radical" is suddenly a thoughtcrime. The teachings of Jesus were considered radical. So were the teachings of Thoreau, MLK, and Gandhi. Why is being radical automatically bad?

[Crepitus]

Most economic news is pretty depressing since the 2008 crash, but this article (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/09/the-american-middle-class-is-losing-ground/) (even the title is bad) shows it despite the overall tone:

Ok so there are a few more upper income households than there were, but there are far more lower income households in absolute terms.

[Peter1469]

There's a good thread topic. Why is being "radical" such a bad thing? I realize there are circumstances where it can be, such as if your radicalism inspires violence (like radical Islam), but just the idea of having beliefs considered "radical" is suddenly a thoughtcrime. The teachings of Jesus were considered radical. So were the teachings of Thoreau, MLK, and Gandhi. Why is being radical automatically bad?

I get the impression that it wasn't his ideas, just the way he advocated them. :smiley:

He wrote Common Sense. He was a Founder.

[Peter1469]

Ok so there are a few more upper income households than there were, but there are far more lower income households in absolute terms.


The quote:

In at least one sense, the shift represents economic progress: While the share of U.S. adults living in both upper- and lower-income households rose alongside the declining share in the middle from 1971 to 2015, the share in the upper-income tier grew more.

[Green Arrow]

I get the impression that it wasn't his ideas, just the way he advocated them. :smiley:

He wrote Common Sense. He was a Founder.

And yet, he's almost never mentioned in the history books or the list of founders. I consider him one of the biggest of the founders, because Common Sense encouraged the revolutionaries to keep fighting when they very nearly gave up altogether. Paine turned the tide at its most critical moment.

[Peter1469]

And yet, he's almost never mentioned in the history books or the list of founders. I consider him one of the biggest of the founders, because Common Sense encouraged the revolutionaries to keep fighting when they very nearly gave up altogether. Paine turned the tide at its most critical moment.

I agree with you.

A long time ago I read that nobody bothered to go to his funeral.

[Crepitus]

Free market economics does not really use that term. Markets set wages based on value. Other types of economic systems use the term living wage . Such as socialism and communism.

I'm not an economist or a lawyer or any of those things. I'm talking about what I see, my terminology my not be correct but I know what I mean and I think you do as well.

[Peter1469]

I'm not an economist or a lawyer or any of those things. I'm talking about what I see, my terminology my not be correct but I know what I mean and I think you do as well.

I do. I also know that nobody mistakes you for someone getting paid a minimum wage. :wink:

[Crepitus]

I think you misunderstood his point. His point was that the low end was $90, so if he paid $80 he wouldn't get any workers. Not that $80 was the low end.

Whatever the number my point is that he went the low end and if he could have gone lower and still get what he needed done he would have.

[Crepitus]

The quote:

In at least one sense, the shift represents economic progress: While the share of U.S. adults living in both upper- and lower-income households rose alongside the declining share in the middle from 1971 to 2015, the share in the upper-income tier grew more.








In total there are still far more lower income households than upper yes?

[Peter1469]

In total there are still far more lower income households than upper yes?

That is always been the case. But more people are moving up. That is what the quote says.

[Archer0915]

In total there are still far more lower income households than upper yes?

And it will continue to decline because Americans are cheap and greedy.

[Crepitus]

I do. I also know that nobody mistakes you for someone getting paid a minimum wage. :wink:

Actually several people here have accused me of pretending be of a higher income level than I am. Especially some of our hard line conservatives.

[Peter1469]

Actually several people here have accused me of pretending be of a higher income level than I am. Especially some of our hard line conservatives.

Sorry, I did not mean to imply anything like that.

[Archer0915]

I think those pushing for a minimum wage hike or shall we say a living wage need to consider what it is to live within ones means.

[Peter1469]

I think those pushing for a minimum wage hike or shall we say a living wage need to consider what it is to live within ones means.

There is that. How well are the poor in the US compared to the historic norm?

[Archer0915]

There is that. How well are the poor in the US compared to the historic norm?

Exactly! What is poor? There is a big difference between being constantly broke and being in true poverty.

I know so many people that stay car broke! They stay credit card broke! Hell many stay drunk and high broke!

[del]

That is under $15 per hour.

that's the kind of nuanced reasoning i've come to expect from you

carry on

[Peter1469]

that's the kind of nuanced reasoning i've come to expect from you

carry on

Go Army.

[del]

Free market economics does not really use that term. Markets set wages based on value. Other types of economic systems use the term living wage . Such as socialism and communism.

please

[Peter1469]

please

:shocked:

Don't beg.

[Don]

How many do they need? 3 billion? 4 billion? 600 million? I think Ted Turner said something like 2 billion. Of course neither him or his old lady Jane Fonda volunteered to help get to that number.

[Green Arrow]

Exactly! What is poor? There is a big difference between being constantly broke and being in true poverty.

I know so many people that stay car broke! They stay credit card broke! Hell many stay drunk and high broke!

Poverty is relative. Virtually no one outside the homeless are as impoverished as people in third world nations because America is a first world nation. That doesn't mean they aren't living in "true poverty." They are truly impoverished and cannot afford to live in our society. If we did not have so many charities and churches were as heavily regulated as they are in third world nations, our people would have the same poverty standard as a third worlder.

This "true poverty" argument is just a cheap way to delegitimize suffering because facing the reality of it is politically inconvenient.

[William]

Australia has a federal minimum wage of $A17.29 ($US 15.58) on top of which there are margins for federal awards, so no one actually gets paid that little. There are also 'penalty rates' which apply to anyone asked to work overtime and on Saturdays and Sundays. AFIK they are 200% for Saturdays and 250% for Sundays. The median wage for Australians is about $65,000 p.a. and Australia has the 4th highest standard of living (after Norway, the Netherlands, and Switzerland) in the world, according to the Inequality adjusted Human Development Index.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_wages_by_country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_HDI

My point is not how much better we are than the USA, and we have poverty (but not at the levels of the USA,) but that it is possible to pay people a decent living wage, without killing off business. This is done throughout Europe, and places like France and Germany have minimum wage rates only a bit lower than ours.

But my real point is that a society does not become better just cos there are more billionaires, and more profitable businesses. It becomes better when the poorest person has an acceptable lifestyle, and when no children go to bed hungry. That means paying people a living wage, and not allowing companies to charge whatever the market will bear. Inequality is not the mark of a civilisation.

[zelmo1234]

Not a straw man. It is an argument I put forth very seriously. So you hire someone to sweep the floor in your office, who determines what is a fair wage?

A wage the will keep that position filled with someone that does the job well. For example janitorial staff's were once employed by the company. My company included. It was largely filled by youth, and part time staff. But Cleaning is not rocket science. But with the passage of the ACA and the coming employer mandate? These positions were going to be come way too expensive because of mandated benefits (Obama postponed these mandates until he is out of office) So we now outsource that service, which gives be a fixed cost. Now I am no fool these companies to keep cost low use immigrant workers who will work for less. And while we try and stress that all workers must have Green cards, I am positive that other companies just don't care as long as costs remain low.

This is a class example of Jobs that were once done by Americans disappearing and moving toward immigrant workers. Now can you imagine if the minimum wage went to 10 or 15 dollars an hour? It would become a point were I would no longer care if the workers were documented, to keep my costs low.

[zelmo1234]

I'm sorry but I disagree. If the problem is not so large then where did the middle class go?

This is an interesting question? In the USA we have been fighting the war on poverty since the late 50's and early 60's. when we started the war, there were about 15% of the population that were living below the poverty line. Today we have about 15% of the population living below the poverty line, so there is about the same number of poor and this number never varies more than a % or 2

At the same time we have a smaller middle class? So if the poor are about the same And the middle class is shrinking, but we have more millionaires in the USA than any time in history? Where do you think they are going?

Now there has been a change in the middle class I will agree. Were they were once largely employed in manufacturing and many were living in that upper middle class range. Those jobs have been taxed and regulated out of the USA by Government policies. Now those jobs are in the service sector, which does not pay as much. so there are not nearly as many in the upper middle class.

Regulating those jobs pay upper middle class wages, is not going to bring that back, but it is going to off shore those jobs, just like the manufacturing jobs. We see this with customer service call centers already

[zelmo1234]

What's to stop those abuses from happening in the present? If they happened then, why not now?

I 2006 McDonalds and Burger King were advertising 12 dollars an hour, and signing bonuses in many areas of the country? They are not doing that anymore? Why do you think they changed that policy?

[zelmo1234]

As long as people with jobs qualify for food stamps the market is not handling it.

Actually; the market is doing exactly what it is supposed to do? As long as government policies and regulations prevent the economy from expanding, and there are many workers for every skill position, and the government is willing to subsidize the positions with Food Stamps? That is what the wages are going to be

Why do you think that forcing them to pay higher wages is going to change the profits and earnings of the owners?

I know that in my company, I am not going to make less money. So if you raise my expenses.. which would not happen with 15 dollar an hour minimums. Someone else is going to take the hit not me.

So if the 15 dollar wage does not effect my business? why do I care???? Because I would not raise my wages for my employee's But the inflation caused by the increase would mean that they actually received a pay cut. Because I have NO intention of taking a pay cut I would have to increase my profits to cover inflation and that would mean cuts to my staff.

[zelmo1234]

Illegals aside I'm willing to bet if you shop around you can find someone who does it for the $80 or even less.

But not likely to find a service with bonded people that you can trust in your home. You can always find poor quality for less. but I am guessing that Peter wants his home clean and does not want his stuff disappearing.

[zelmo1234]

I haven't seen any evidence of that. Do you have anything to support your claim?

Yes the poverty % is about the same, and the middle class is smaller? Where did they go?

[zelmo1234]

Opt out...how? Abolish all laws regulating business today, including the minimum wage, and the market decides the slave wages of pre-1938 were just dandy. How do I opt out of that? Every business is paying that $#@! wage except businesses I can't work at due to qualifications.

How do I opt out?

Get the qualifications? What we have happening today is there are people working service and food service jobs that were never designed to support a family. They were designed for youth and members of families trying to make a few extra dollars. I remember the year that we wanted to go on a 3 week vacation to see the national parks in the Rockies and the Grand Canyon. My Mother took a job working in a restaurant for about 5 months to make a little extra money so we could afford the trip. When we returned, she did not continue to work the job.

[zelmo1234]

If there were abuses then why do you think there wouldn't be now?

You are assuming that there are not abuses now? Where do you think the 11 million to 30 million illegals are working and why do you think they are getting the jobs over American workers?

[zelmo1234]

BTW I get 4 times for $200 here in Kansas.

this is actually a great example and reason that a national minimum wage is a terrible idea.

Where do you think that it cost more to live Kansas or The Washington DC area?

[zelmo1234]

We are subsidising the business owner by allowing him to pay less than a living wage.

Do you think that a business owner is going to take a smaller cut if you force his expenses up?

[zelmo1234]

Ok so there are a few more upper income households than there were, but there are far more lower income households in absolute terms.

Statistics don't show that?

[zelmo1234]

I get the impression that it wasn't his ideas, just the way he advocated them. :smiley:

He wrote Common Sense. He was a Founder.

But because of his ideas latter in life, he is the only founder that is not honored with memorials? Go figure.

[zelmo1234]

Whatever the number my point is that he went the low end and if he could have gone lower and still get what he needed done he would have.

That is not true. he could have gotten it done for 20 dollars a month from someone looking to scope places our for burglary? But he wanted Insured workers so and a clean home, when you go to low you get poor quality and dishonesty.

[zelmo1234]

Australia has a federal minimum wage of $A17.29 ($US 15.58) on top of which there are margins for federal awards, so no one actually gets paid that little. There are also 'penalty rates' which apply to anyone asked to work overtime and on Saturdays and Sundays. AFIK they are 200% for Saturdays and 250% for Sundays. The median wage for Australians is about $65,000 p.a. and Australia has the 4th highest standard of living (after Norway, the Netherlands, and Switzerland) in the world, according to the Inequality adjusted Human Development Index.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_wages_by_country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_HDI

My point is not how much better we are than the USA, and we have poverty (but not at the levels of the USA,) but that it is possible to pay people a decent living wage, without killing off business. This is done throughout Europe, and places like France and Germany have minimum wage rates only a bit lower than ours.

But my real point is that a society does not become better just cos there are more billionaires, and more profitable businesses. It becomes better when the poorest person has an acceptable lifestyle, and when no children go to bed hungry. That means paying people a living wage, and not allowing companies to charge whatever the market will bear. Inequality is not the mark of a civilisation.

Australia is a unique situation? How many Free trade agreements does it have with other nations? And it of course has no land connections with other nations so it can control imports very well. It also has a devastatingly poor native population

[Green Arrow]

I 2006 McDonalds and Burger King were advertising 12 dollars an hour, and signing bonuses in many areas of the country? They are not doing that anymore? Why do you think they changed that policy?

I don't know.


Get the qualifications?

And go into debt potentially for the rest of my life? Not much of a trade-off. Besides, it's not that easy anyway, even if it was affordable. We are not all designed to do the exact same things and there's a reason for that.

Of course, even if you have the qualifications it doesn't guarantee you a job. I know plenty of people with good degrees that work right alongside me in my upscale fast food restaurant. Welcome to the new economy.


What we have happening today is there are people working service and food service jobs that were never designed to support a family.

Because there aren't enough non-service jobs out there.


They were designed for youth and members of families trying to make a few extra dollars. I remember the year that we wanted to go on a 3 week vacation to see the national parks in the Rockies and the Grand Canyon. My Mother took a job working in a restaurant for about 5 months to make a little extra money so we could afford the trip. When we returned, she did not continue to work the job.

That's nice, but that was also thirty or more years ago. Times have changed and so has the economic dynamic.

People who are not poor today really need to stop lecturing those who ARE poor today on what they need to do. Y'all don't have the slightest clue what we do, try to do, and what is possible to do.

[zelmo1234]

I don't know.

And go into debt potentially for the rest of my life? Not much of a trade-off. Besides, it's not that easy anyway, even if it was affordable. We are not all designed to do the exact same things and there's a reason for that.

Of course, even if you have the qualifications it doesn't guarantee you a job. I know plenty of people with good degrees that work right alongside me in my upscale fast food restaurant. Welcome to the new economy.

Because there aren't enough non-service jobs out there.

That's nice, but that was also thirty or more years ago. Times have changed and so has the economic dynamic.

People who are not poor today really need to stop lecturing those who ARE poor today on what they need to do. Y'all don't have the slightest clue what we do, try to do, and what is possible to do.

Here is the thing, you don't need a 100K education to make more money. A Welding certificate ad a good community collage or trade school would cost about 10K at the very most and produces a job making 50 to 100K per year. Auto Mechanics s going to cost you 20 to 25K and you can make 50K. And if food services are your choice, then becoming a Chef at about 15K or a line cook at 5K is going to double or triple your income.

That are plenty of people that have Liberal arts degree's that are worthless. that is not the fault of society, it is their fault.

So while I am sure that you won't take this well, It is not my fault that you don't want to put in the effort to improve your situation. Paying to get a better education is something that has a huge payback and if you are poor enough you can even get grants to help with your education.

Now if you are happy with your lot in life and enjoy what you are doing GREAT I am so happy for you, but many people in those positions are demanding that that they make as much as others that have upgraded their skills and that is just wrong.

[Ethereal]

Was gonna go that way anyway regardless what minimum wage did.

Yea, but minimum wages accelerate the process, meaning low-skilled workers have to adapt to changing market conditions that much faster.

[Ethereal]

If that were true, then the minimum wage being stagnant would lead to more human employment instead of increased automation, but the opposite has happened.

As technology evolves, automation will grow. Why? Because it's cheap. Keep minimum wage at $1 an hour and this guy will still fully automate his restaurant because the automation costs $1 less an hour to work.

Certainly firms are always looking for ways to minimize costs (while maximizing revenues), and automation was clearly one the most significant long-term strategies for minimizing costs, but cost-effective automation requires a hefty investment of capital in research and development (ultra sophisticated machinery and computers are expensive), and there is no guarantee you will see a return on your investment. So if a firm had to choose between conventional labor and automation, they would tend to pick the less risky option, which is conventional labor. The minimum wage doesn't force automation because there is a long run incentive to invest in it, but it definitely puts increased pressure on firms to pursue automation more aggressively in the short run, which hurts low skilled workers the most. The minimum wage not only prices people out of the labor market, it provides extra incentive for firms to automate or outsource their labor. The minimum wage is probably one of the biggest reasons why low skilled workers cannot find jobs.

[Ethereal]

Because nobody wants to deny the businessman a profit, they just don't think he should make it by starving the workers to the point where the government has to feed them.

When were people starving in America?

[Peter1469]

Amazon is automating their warehouses.

[Ethereal]

The moral of this story, kids, is if you pay your employees chitty wages, you won't get automation. I mean, you'll get a union, but at least it won't be automated.

Or maybe they will go out of business. But who cares, right? They're just a greedy businessman anyway. They probably deserve it!

[Ethereal]

It's a stupid $#@!ing question with an obvious answer and I don't give a $#@! whether you respond or not.

The question is entirely valid. You just don't have a logical answer, as usual.

[Ethereal]

I actually don't. Since it's been a political campaign issue I had assumed (I know,I know) that someone somewhere has done some research or studies to come up with the figure.

Did you ever take an economics course? Not being snarky. Just wondering.

[Ethereal]

I dunno, do things suck? I never made that claim.

Since we're talking about refrigerators, here's what I know: with a median household income of $3,900 and refrigerators costing $329, not many Americans could afford a fridge in the 50s. Today, with the median household income of $53,657 and fridges costing not much more, times may seem good. But here's the thing: it can be even better. Since the late 60s, the gini index has steadily increased. Consequently, the gap between the rich and poor has widened. The rich are richer largely due to lower taxes on the rich. This wealth has trickled up, rather than down. For example. back then, in 1969, the 1% owned only 8% of the wealth; today they own 20%.

Washington is to blame. Laws have reduced taxes and segregated wealth, resulting in the highest concentration of wealth in American history. Lobbyists and interest groups encourage Congress to create laws to reduce taxes. Essentially, Washington is bought by the rich.

Look at the number of tax laws tabled by Congress in 2013:

https://horseradish.s3.amazonaws.com/CACHE/images/photos/96/02/40009f8a4cbf/Figure-1--pie-800.png


With the help of Congress, relative deprivation has increased wildly. While consumer goods are cheap and plentiful in late modernity, some things like housing and tuition are not so cheap, and young people are struggling. 1 in 6 Americans face hunger, despite the average wealth of the nation. This income disparity is what the 1 percent is fighting, and it starts with Washington.

Income inequality is caused by low taxes on the rich. Or maybe income inequality is caused by high taxes on the poor.

[Ethereal]

Since you were posting a stupid question, why did you stop at $30-40 per hour being better for the country than $15? Go for the total idiocy of say, $300-400.

If $15 an hour is good for the economy, then $300 an hour must be even better.

[Ethereal]

Quite frankly, all these arguments against the minimum wage at this point really validate the biggest argument FOR the minimum wage, an argument the anti-minimum wage side claims is false: that without minimum wage, employers would pay far, far, far below the minimum wage.

Many employers pay well above the minimum wage. It just depends on the supply and demand of the job in question. For jobs with low demand or high supply (or a combination of both), it's entirely possible the employer would pay below the present minimum wage for them. But you know what they're paying for those jobs right now? Typically, zero dollars an hour, because many of those low-paying jobs simply don't exist. So the question you have to ask yourself is this: Would you rather someone make $5 an hour or $0 an hour? Because that is often the choice that minimum wages force on employers.

[Ethereal]

If every employer does that, the market wages will be well below what minimum wage is now.

At least they will have a job and some work experience.

[Ethereal]

Who else does?

If employers held all the cards, then they wouldn't pay anyone anything. Firms compete for labor just like they compete for customers.

[Ethereal]

Sure they do. The die hard conservative types here are always saying how the minimum wage types want something for nothing. Doesn't that equate to calling them.greedy?

Some of them are greedy.

[Ethereal]

if minimum wage had kept up with inflation, the $1.65/hr i made in 1970 would be $10.30/hr now.

If inflation had been zero percent, then there would have been no need to raise the minimum wage.

[Ethereal]

Which is what it should be now.

That's why I support policies to tie the minimum wage to inflation. Maybe then the anti-minimum wage folks would be less inclined to support policies that increase inflation. Inflation goes down, cost of living goes down and the money we make is worth more. Everybody's happy.

I was under the impression that pro-minimum wage folks are more likely to support inflationary monetary policy, since they are typically the ones who think the government should be spending and borrowing a lot.

[Ethereal]

We don't know that, because minimum wage exists. What we do have is historical record of what America looked like before the minimum wage and it is not a pretty picture. Not for American workers, anyway.

That's a pretty broad brush. Some workers had it bad, some had it good, some had it middling. And the distribution of those categories would have varied over time. During the early 1800's, most people were small scale farmers and hunters. Granted, it was not always easy or highly profitable, but many of those people still managed to lead rewarding and interesting lives nonetheless. And they didn't depend on the state or on corporations for their livelihood. They had the land and their communities to support them. Is that really so bad? And how much of the difficulty that those small scale farmers and hunters faced was due to a lack of technology as opposed to a lack of a minimum wage?

[William]

If $15 an hour is good for the economy, then $300 an hour must be even better.

I say this with all due respect, but that's just being silly. There is a balance and an optimum point in all these calculations. I read somewhere that drinking one glass of red wine a day is good for your health - but do you think drinking 30 glasses of red wine would be even better for your health? :wink:

[Ethereal]

I say this with all due respect, but that's just being silly.

No, it is not being silly. It is perfectly valid question. Supporters of the minimum wage can't or won't answer it because it demonstrates that the minimum wage is bad in principle, not merely degree.


There is a balance and an optimum point in all these calculations.

Then will you explain how to achieve this balance and what the optimum level is and why?


I read somewhere that drinking one glass of red wine a day is good for your health - but do you think drinking 30 glasses of red wine would be even better for your health? :wink:

In order for your analogy to work, it has to presuppose that a small minimum wage is a good thing for the economy as a whole. But the laws of supply and demand seem to suggest otherwise.

[William]

Australia is a unique situation? How many Free trade agreements does it have with other nations? And it of course has no land connections with other nations so it can control imports very well. It also has a devastatingly poor native population

Every country is unique. And yes, Australia has Free Trade Agreements, it currently has one with the USA. And what has Australia being an island have to do with Minimum Wages and its standard of living. The control of imports doesn't depend on having land borders (unless you claim most of the Walmart crap you buy has been smuggled in,) and it doesn't have much to do with local wages.

And yes, the native population, in my country and in yours, is disadvantaged and there is no excuse for that, but again, what has that to do with paying a living wage?

[William]

No, it is not being silly. It is perfectly valid question. Supporters of the minimum wage can't or won't answer it because it demonstrates that the minimum wage is bad in principle, not merely degree.

It doesn't demonstrate anything like that. It just demonstrates that some people don't like the idea of people being paid a fair wage, cos that means less profit for the employers. I showed you that the minimum wage in other countries is one of the things that give them a higher standard of living than in countries without a minimum wage. There is nothing bad with that in principle.


Then will you explain how to achieve this balance and what the optimum level is and why?

I'm a high-school student, not an economist, and I don't have access to the data an economist would. But there is definitely an optimal point which benefits the employee, the employer, and society in general. We are discussing these things as principles, not presenting a white paper to Parliament.


In order for your analogy to work, it has to presuppose that a small minimum wage is a good thing for the economy as a whole. But the laws of supply and demand seem to suggest otherwise.

The good thing for the economy as a whole is to have a well-paid, healthy, and contented work force, which means a highly productive work force - which is good for society. Having more billionaires but with one in five children living with food-insecurity in the richest nation on earth, is not good for any society.


In 2013, more than one in five U.S. children (21 percent) lived in households that were food-insecure at some point during the year, and 1.0 percent experienced the most severe level of need, where food intake is reduced and regular eating patterns are disrupted.
http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=food-insecurityfood-insecurity

[FindersKeepers]

If that is true, why is it a "trade-off" if he'll be paying the same either way?

Not really.

He won't have to pay (and match) an employees FICA, or foot the bill for health insurance.

The higher the minimum wage and the more intrusive government "fees," the quicker an employer will switch to non-human means.

[domer76]

If $15 an hour is good for the economy, then $300 an hour must be even better.

lol.

How's that herbicide on your lawn that you changed from 1 oz/gal to 50 oz/gal working for you, Tim the Toolman? Sod is about $0.80 a foot installed. Since you RWers love to pay people for not doing their jobs, I can come over and NOT install it for $0.50 per foot! What a deal, huh?

[domer76]

If inflation had been zero percent, then there would have been no need to raise the minimum wage.

There it is. The gift that keeps on giving!

Another ridiculous "if/would". Jesus, you guys write the book on logical fallacies. Or, in the case for many of you, logical fantasies.

[domer76]

No, it is not being silly. It is perfectly valid question. Supporters of the minimum wage can't or won't answer it because it demonstrates that the minimum wage is bad in principle, not merely degree.



Then will you explain how to achieve this balance and what the optimum level is and why?



In order for your analogy to work, it has to presuppose that a small minimum wage is a good thing for the economy as a whole. But the laws of supply and demand seem to suggest otherwise.

Even a kid from halfway across the world has to school you!

Just effing priceless!

[zelmo1234]

I say this with all due respect, but that's just being silly. There is a balance and an optimum point in all these calculations. I read somewhere that drinking one glass of red wine a day is good for your health - but do you think drinking 30 glasses of red wine would be even better for your health? :wink:

So if a some what higher wage is good for the economy? Then why is an even higher one bad for the economy?

[zelmo1234]

Every country is unique. And yes, Australia has Free Trade Agreements, it currently has one with the USA. And what has Australia being an island have to do with Minimum Wages and its standard of living. The control of imports doesn't depend on having land borders (unless you claim most of the Walmart crap you buy has been smuggled in,) and it doesn't have much to do with local wages.

And yes, the native population, in my country and in yours, is disadvantaged and there is no excuse for that, but again, what has that to do with paying a living wage?

What makes a difference is it is very hard for illegal workers to over run your work force, and it is much more expensive for people to import as it takes a boat, or plane not a truck or Train. And that Free trade agreement that you have with the USA will greatly benefit you as the price of the things that you sell in the USA Wine for one will be more compatible with others. For us, we likely will come up on the short end of the stick

As for our Native populations? They are getting the country back, one nickel at a time with the Casino's that many are investing in. So even they have figured out a way.

[zelmo1234]

It doesn't demonstrate anything like that. It just demonstrates that some people don't like the idea of people being paid a fair wage, cos that means less profit for the employers. I showed you that the minimum wage in other countries is one of the things that give them a higher standard of living than in countries without a minimum wage. There is nothing bad with that in principle.
I'm a high-school student, not an economist, and I don't have access to the data an economist would. But there is definitely an optimal point which benefits the employee, the employer, and society in general. We are discussing these things as principles, not presenting a white paper to Parliament.
The good thing for the economy as a whole is to have a well-paid, healthy, and contented work force, which means a highly productive work force - which is good for society. Having more billionaires but with one in five children living with food-insecurity in the richest nation on earth, is not good for any society.


http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=food-insecurityfood-insecurity

First their are a lot of poor assumptions in this post, that many make when talking about a Minimum Wage. The first one that I think is really funny is the one were they think Employer's and Stock Holders are going to take less Money so they can pay the workers more. My profits are based on a %. and that % is not open for negotiation, So let's say that I own a company that pays 25 workers minimum wage and they all work 40 hours a week. So my payroll is $401505 with FICA taxes each year. Now your force me to pay 15 dollars an hour and it would go to $830705 with FICA taxes. But I can hire much more qualified workers and can expect more out of them. so the first thing I am going to do is cut 20% of my work force. 5 jobs gone. $664560 but 5 low skilled workers are out of a job, and will not likely find one. Now I can add some automation that will cost me 200K But it will allow me to get ride of 10 more workers and this automation has a 10 year life expectancy $352280 and now 15 low skilled workers are out of a job and I did not have to change my profits I actually increased it. Which of course I needed to do because I was force to invest 200K to automate my business. But the Government has 15 less workers paying into the FICA system, and they now are paying benefits to those same workers.

Business owner are not taking a dime less, not one dime.

As for Food issues in the USA? They don't exist. We have an obesity problem in the youth of this country, not a scarcity issue. If that is taking place it is because mom and dad are hooked on drugs and abusing their children

[zelmo1234]

Even a kid from halfway across the world has to school you!

Just effing priceless!

Please see below post for economic 101.

[zelmo1234]

One thing that I have no issue with is States Setting Minimum wages. For example the Federal wage is 7.25 an hour I think??? But I think only a few states have that wage, most are higher.

But to say that CA and AR need to have the same wage is foolish. It should not be handled at the Federal level.

[Mac-7]

I wonder how many of these workers are illegal aliens?

Quite a few I imagine

[Tahuyaman]

I think Ted Turner said something like 2 billion. Of course neither him or his old lady Jane Fonda volunteered to help get to that number.

Ted Turner? What ever happened to him anyway?

[Archer0915]

Australia has a federal minimum wage of $A17.29 ($US 15.58) on top of which there are margins for federal awards, so no one actually gets paid that little. There are also 'penalty rates' which apply to anyone asked to work overtime and on Saturdays and Sundays. AFIK they are 200% for Saturdays and 250% for Sundays. The median wage for Australians is about $65,000 p.a. and Australia has the 4th highest standard of living (after Norway, the Netherlands, and Switzerland) in the world, according to the Inequality adjusted Human Development Index.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_wages_by_country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_HDI

My point is not how much better we are than the USA, and we have poverty (but not at the levels of the USA,) but that it is possible to pay people a decent living wage, without killing off business. This is done throughout Europe, and places like France and Germany have minimum wage rates only a bit lower than ours.

But my real point is that a society does not become better just cos there are more billionaires, and more profitable businesses. It becomes better when the poorest person has an acceptable lifestyle, and when no children go to bed hungry. That means paying people a living wage, and not allowing companies to charge whatever the market will bear. Inequality is not the mark of a civilisation.

Yes, what is your trade deficit?

[Crepitus]

A wage the will keep that position filled with someone that does the job well. For example janitorial staff's were once employed by the company. My company included. It was largely filled by youth, and part time staff. But Cleaning is not rocket science. But with the passage of the ACA and the coming employer mandate? These positions were going to be come way too expensive because of mandated benefits (Obama postponed these mandates until he is out of office) So we now outsource that service, which gives be a fixed cost. Now I am no fool these companies to keep cost low use immigrant workers who will work for less. And while we try and stress that all workers must have Green cards, I am positive that other companies just don't care as long as costs remain low.

This is a class example of Jobs that were once done by Americans disappearing and moving toward immigrant workers. Now can you imagine if the minimum wage went to 10 or 15 dollars an hour? It would become a point were I would no longer care if the workers were documented, to keep my costs low.

So, no answer then?

[zelmo1234]

So, no answer then?

Did I forget to answer something? I can do that, just bring it back to my attention I assure you that it is not intentional

[Crepitus]

Did I forget to answer something? I can do that, just bring it back to my attention I assure you that it is not intentional

12 individual quote notifications and not one single cogent original response among them. You forgot to answer a lot of stuff.

[Crepitus]

Yea, but minimum wages accelerate the process, meaning low-skilled workers have to adapt to changing market conditions that much faster.

Not really, it hasn't gone up. Might not depending on how it goes in November.

[Crepitus]

When were people starving in America?

Many would be if not for snap programs.

[Crepitus]

Did you ever take an economics course? Not being snarky. Just wondering.

Nope. Just live in the American economy.

[Crepitus]

Some of them are greedy.

Lol. Case in point.

[Green Arrow]

That are plenty of people that have Liberal arts degree's that are worthless. that is not the fault of society, it is their fault.

I said "good degrees" in my post, meaning useful ones. That doesn't include "liberal arts."


So while I am sure that you won't take this well, It is not my fault that you don't want to put in the effort to improve your situation. Paying to get a better education is something that has a huge payback and if you are poor enough you can even get grants to help with your education.

This isn't about me. Five and a half years ago, I was homeless and didn't know shit about how to survive on my own. I clawed my way up to where I am now and I'm not even close to being done yet, but in not even a full year of working where I'm working now I'm already working my way into management despite not having management experience. I've got a 4.0 GPA so far in school, and I'm about a month or two away from having my own place for the first time ever.

My point isn't that it's so hard people shouldn't even try. My point is you guys that already have your wealth and high standing don't get that it's not all sunshine and roses and it isn't as easy or as cheap as it was when you got ahead. I've damn near died more times than I can count to get where I am. It isn't fucking easy, so don't even try to sell that BS.

[zelmo1234]

12 individual quote notifications and not one single cogent original response among them. You forgot to answer a lot of stuff.

Well lets start at the beginning, Name the first one and we will go from there.

[Green Arrow]

At least they will have a job and some work experience.

Which isn't worth much if you don't make enough to afford a place to live or food to eat.

[zelmo1234]

Nope. Just live in the American economy.

I agree that for the last 8 years it has been tuff!

[zelmo1234]

Lol. Case in point.

How do you think that raising the minimum wage is going to stop that???

[Green Arrow]

That's a pretty broad brush. Some workers had it bad, some had it good, some had it middling. And the distribution of those categories would have varied over time. During the early 1800's, most people were small scale farmers and hunters. Granted, it was not always easy or highly profitable, but many of those people still managed to lead rewarding and interesting lives nonetheless. And they didn't depend on the state or on corporations for their livelihood. They had the land and their communities to support them. Is that really so bad? And how much of the difficulty that those small scale farmers and hunters faced was due to a lack of technology as opposed to a lack of a minimum wage?

The Industrial Revolution changed all of that and moved us away from being an agrarian society. I would prefer a return to agrarianism but that pandora's box has already been opened. We have to adapt our outlook.

[zelmo1234]

Which isn't worth much if you don't make enough to afford a place to live or food to eat.

Well if that person chosen profession does not pay a lot,, they may have to take on a room mate or 2

[Green Arrow]

Not really.

He won't have to pay (and match) an employees FICA, or foot the bill for health insurance.

The higher the minimum wage and the more intrusive government "fees," the quicker an employer will switch to non-human means.


I wasn't arguing it was a trade-off, that was someone else.

[Crepitus]

How do you think that raising the minimum wage is going to stop that???

Why would it think or even be concerned about that?

[Crepitus]

I agree that for the last 8 years it has been tuff!

Yup, ever since the bush crash.

[zelmo1234]

Yup, ever since the bush crash.

I know Usually economies recover faster than this? I wonder why it is taking so long?

[zelmo1234]

Why would it think or even be concerned about that?

So you agree that raising the minimum wage is not going to effect the amount of money that Business owner make.

Good, then why are we doing it, because the buying power is going to be the same

[kilgram]

Get an education in a skill worth something.
Good answer. Now tell us where he can get the money to pay that education and the time.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

[Peter1469]

Good answer. Now tell us where he can get the money to pay that education and the time.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk


This isn't the answer (http://www.thelifeofjulia.com).

I joined the army and got the college fund that gave me $800 per month while in school. I also joined the national guard and had free tuition in Louisiana.

[Polecat]

The college education path is not feasible for everyone. Not because of mental ability or cost but because if every single human being on the planet had a doctorate in some discipline or another we still have to get stuff done with labor. Some labor dose require a developed skill set but most of it is pretty simple stuff that you do over and over. The Greeks spent all their time in thought and figured out some amazing things but they had slaves to see to all the actual work. Slavery is no longer fashionable but is still a reality for billions of people that live hand to mouth week by week. When an artificial labor unit that can do anything a live person can do is readily available then the planet will be cleansed of the lower classes of people regardless of their skill set or PhD.

Don't like the way this sounds? Then you are not in the ruling class. If you do like the way this sounds then you are among the anointed and already know I speak the truth.

[William]

Business owner are not taking a dime less, not one dime.

Lol, The French and Russian aristocracy took that attitude in the 18th and 19th centuries. It was great for the economy and public order. And it too resulted in starving children. :grin:


As for Food issues in the USA? They don't exist. We have an obesity problem in the youth of this country, not a scarcity issue. If that is taking place it is because mom and dad are hooked on drugs and abusing their children

So all these statistics are just lies? :rollseyes:


1 in 4 children arrive at school hungry in San Diego, and a meal at school is often their only source of nourishment each day.
http://www.sandiegohungercoalition.org/?gclid=CLDaprea0MsCFUdvvAodltQJwg


In 2013, more than one in five U.S. children (21 percent) lived in households that were food-insecure at some point during the year, and 1.0 percent experienced the most severe level of need, where food intake is reduced and regular eating patterns are disrupted.
http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=food-insecurity


In the United States today, 15 million children face hunger. Consequently, one in five kids are facing greater obstacles to reaching their fullest potential.
http://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/impact-of-hunger/child-hunger/


Among U.S. households with children under age 18:



80.8 percent were food secure in 2014.
In 9.8 percent of households with children, only adults were food insecure.
Both children and adults were food insecure in 9.4 percent of households with children (3.7 million households).
Although children are usually protected from substantial reductions in food intake even in households with very low food security, nevertheless, in about 1.1 percent of households with children (422,000 households), one or more child also experienced reduced food intake and disrupted eating patterns at some time during the year.



http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/key-statistics-graphics.aspx



Household food insecurity, defined as the inability to provide enough food for a healthy and active lifestyle for all household members, is a major U.S. public health problem (Coleman-Jensen, Nord, Andrews, & Carlson, 2011). Based on data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), in 2010, 14.5 percent of U.S. households — 17.2 million households — were food insecure, with rates as high as 49.9 percent for low-income, female-headed households with children (Nord, Coleman-Jensen, Andrews, & Carlson, 2010). Although food insecurity is associated with poverty, approximately 85 percent of food insecure households with children had an adult who was employed, suggesting that employment opportunities and wages are important considerations in food insecurity.
http://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/indicator/2012/06/household-food-insecurities.aspx


Fifty million Americans – one in five children - go to bed and awaken hungry. Across the United States, the number of families and individuals who are food insecure or living in constant fear of not being able to feed their families and themselves has remained constant or been growing for many years. The country’s crippling economic crisis is resulting in record high spikes in poverty, unemployment, hunger and homelessness.
http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/hunger.html

[zelmo1234]

Good answer. Now tell us where he can get the money to pay that education and the time.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

Well most people either borrow the money, Some that are poor get Grants, then they could join the military we have a great GI program. Or, and I know being a Socialist you won't understand this one. They could work one of those jobs that don't pat a lot. Start out in Community Collage, get that 2 year degree, and then get a better job and work their way through the 4 year degree. Now I know that working is not something that you understand, but people do it every day.

[zelmo1234]

Lol, The French and Russian aristocracy took that attitude in the 18th and 19th centuries. It was great for the economy and public order. And it too resulted in starving children. :grin:
So all these statistics are just lies? :rollseyes:



You go on thinking that forcing companies to pay more is going to effect the owners pocket book if you want, in reality it does not happen. But being that you are a person that leans to the left, it does not surprise me that you went to violent uprisings to make your point. That is exactly what the Democrats in the USA are trying to start here, as we speak.

As for children I did not say that it doesn't happen I said it was the parents fault, Mostly because the purchase food, sell it and feed their drug and alcohol habits. I day take the kids from them and cut them off the welfare system.

[Polecat]

Lol, The French and Russian aristocracy took that attitude in the 18th and 19th centuries. It was great for the economy and public order. And it too resulted in starving children. :grin:


So all these statistics are just lies? :rollseyes:


http://www.sandiegohungercoalition.org/?gclid=CLDaprea0MsCFUdvvAodltQJwg


http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=food-insecurity


http://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/impact-of-hunger/child-hunger/



http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/key-statistics-graphics.aspx



http://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/indicator/2012/06/household-food-insecurities.aspx

http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/hunger.html


Food is available for everybody here. The reasons some people don't get fed has nothing to do with other people having all the food or money. It is always due to people that are not mentally capable of doing the things needed to take care of themselves or their dependents. There is no exception to this either. Every hungry kid has an incompetent adult to blame.

[Mac-7]

Lol, The French and Russian aristocracy took that attitude in the 18th and 19th centuries. It was great for the economy and public order. And it too resulted in starving children. :grin:



So all these statistics are just lies? :rollseyes:


http://www.sandiegohungercoalition.org/?gclid=CLDaprea0MsCFUdvvAodltQJwg


http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=food-insecurity


http://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/impact-of-hunger/child-hunger/

http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/key-statistics-graphics.aspx

http://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/indicator/2012/06/household-food-insecurities.aspx

http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/hunger.html

I see the precocious child from Australia is telling us dumb Americans everything we wanted to know about our own country but were afraid to ask.

Unlike him I dont have all the answers.

but I do know that most poor people in America bring the poverty on themselves if they were born here or bring it with them from mexico if they werent.

[texan]

Was gonna go that way anyway regardless what minimum wage did.

I love people trying to turn minimum wage jobs into skilled positions................Not the answer just a democrat wedge issue.

[Crepitus]

S
I know Usually economies recover faster than this? I wonder why it is taking so long?
Hmmmm. Possibly a Republican cabal that had a meeting on inauguration day and vowed to opposes everything the newly elected president tried to do?

[William]

Food is available for everybody here. The reasons some people don't get fed has nothing to do with other people having all the food or money. It is always due to people that are not mentally capable of doing the things needed to take care of themselves or their dependents. There is no exception to this either. Every hungry kid has an incompetent adult to blame.

That may be so, but this study suggests wage levels have something to do with child food insecurity.


Although food insecurity is associated with poverty, approximately 85 percent of food insecure households with children had an adult who was employed, suggesting that employment opportunities and wages are important considerations in food insecurity.

[Peter1469]

S
Hmmmm. Possibly a Republican cabal that had a meeting on inauguration day and vowed to opposes everything the newly elected president tried to do?

Did they block any of his economic legislation? QE 2, and 3 for instance?

[William]

I see the precocious child from Australia is telling us dumb Americans everything we wanted to know about our own country but were afraid to ask.

Unlike him I dont have all the answers.

but I do know that most poor people in America bring the poverty on themselves if they were born here or bring it with them from mexico if they werent.

Why is it precocious to join in a discussion about something important?

Your response is not sensible - I am not claiming to know everything, but when I discuss something I try and support my opinions with factual references. If you can't refute the evidence that roughly 20% of American children are in danger of going hungry, then just accept it (or better still, try to do something about it). Attacking the messenger is not much of an answer, neither is it good-faith posting. :wink:

[Mac-7]

S
Hmmmm. Possibly a Republican cabal that had a meeting on inauguration day and vowed to opposes everything the newly elected president tried to do?

Obimer got the trillion dollar slush fund/stimulus that he demanded.

but he wasted most of the money on stupidty such as teaching african men how to clean their penis.

[decedent]

Or maybe they will go out of business. But who cares, right? They're just a greedy businessman anyway. They probably deserve it!

Why do people want to unionize?

[Mac-7]

Why is it precocious to join in a discussion about something important?

Your response is not sensible - I am not claiming to know everything, but when I discuss something I try and support my opinions with factual references. If you can't refute the evidence that roughly 20% of American children are in danger of going hungry, then just accept it (or better still, try to do something about it). Attacking the messenger is not much of an answer, neither is it good-faith posting. :wink:

you are sitting in Australia telling Americans what is going on in their own country.

you dont know what you are talking about with or without links to "studies."

[Peter1469]

you are sitting in Australia telling Americans what is going on in their own country.

you dont know what you are talking about with or without links to "studies."

He probably knows how the US government works better than many here do.

[Mac-7]

If you can't refute the evidence that roughly 20% of American children are in danger of going hungry, then just accept it (or better still, try to do something about it).



Refute it?

No.

and i have already told you why they are in poverty.

[Mac-7]

He probably knows how the US government works better than many here do.

I wouldnt know.

I'm only an American.

[decedent]

Income inequality is caused by low taxes on the rich. Or maybe income inequality is caused by high taxes on the poor.

The poor don't pay progressive taxes or income taxes, but they do pay regressive taxes -- mostly in sales tax.

But the income tax on the rich isn't truly progressive when they're often paying rates close to what the middle class pay.

[Peter1469]

I wouldnt know.

I'm only an American.

:smiley:

[Archer0915]

K, I am the certified industrial engineer here and I can tell you that wages and profit margins are the issue. Blame the stockholders for it if you like. Take command of your blind investment or just deal.

I also have a business degree and I can tell you hat that increased wage means the company is also paying out more FICA:
The Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) is the federal law that requires you to withhold three separate taxes from the wages (http://www.bizfilings.com/toolkit/sbg/tax-info/payroll-taxes/what-constitutes-taxable-compensation.aspx) you pay your employees (http://www.bizfilings.com/toolkit/sbg/tax-info/payroll-taxes/employee-or-independent-contractor-payroll-tax.aspx). FICA is comprised of:

a 6.2 percent Social Security tax;
a 1.45 percent Medicare tax (the “regular” Medicare tax); and
beginning in 2013, a 0.9 percent Medicare surtax when the employee earns over $200,000.
The profits are high due to volume not individual sales. All the profit goes out the window with a high wage.

Just thought I would mention this again.

[Mac-7]

:smiley:

Whats up Peter?

Did something trigger your big brother or fatherly instincts?

ok I wont spend any more time trying to explain the real world of poverty in America to william.

if I do you'll just accuse me of child abuse.

[Archer0915]

Whats up Peter?

Did something trigger your big brother or fatherly instincts?

ok I wont spend any more time trying to explain the real world of poverty in America to william.

if I do you'll just accuse me of child abuse.

I think it is a matter of substance included with the comment.

[Mister D]

In 2013, household food insecurity was more than twice as prevalent among children in households headed by blacks (36 percent) or Hispanics (30 percent), than in those headed by whites (15 percent). The proportion of households where children had “very low food security,” was between three and four times as high in black or Hispanic households as it was in white households. (Figure 2) - See more at: http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=food-insecurity#sthash.Oso49f4a.dpuf



In 2013, household food insecurity among children was more than twice as prevalent in households headed by single women as it was in those headed by married couples (37 and 15 percent, respectively), and also significantly higher than was found among households headed by single men (26 percent). Children in households headed by a single woman were also twice as likely as children in households headed by a married couple to experience very low food security themselves, at 2.0 and 0.7 percent, respectively. (Figure 3) - See more at: http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=food-insecurity#sthash.Oso49f4a.dpuf


You don't say.

[Ethereal]

Many would be if not for snap programs.

So where were all these starving Americans before SNAP?

[Little Ball Of Hate]

But no health care to pay for. Cheaper, all around to automate. Obama care has killed more jobs than anything else has. As it was designed to do.

[Ethereal]

It doesn't demonstrate anything like that. It just demonstrates that some people don't like the idea of people being paid a fair wage, cos that means less profit for the employers. I showed you that the minimum wage in other countries is one of the things that give them a higher standard of living than in countries without a minimum wage. There is nothing bad with that in principle.

Correlation is not causation.

And "fair" in the context of wages is entirely subjective. Two people can look at the same job and arrive at two entirely different "fair" wages. Why is your conception of "fair" more legitimate than mine or anyone else's?


I'm a high-school student, not an economist, and I don't have access to the data an economist would. But there is definitely an optimal point which benefits the employee, the employer, and society in general. We are discussing these things as principles, not presenting a white paper to Parliament.

How can you claim there is "definitely" such a "point" if you cannot even explain how to arrive at it?

And many economists agree with me. So where does that leave us?


The good thing for the economy as a whole is to have a well-paid, healthy, and contented work force...

I agree. But I do not agree that minimum wage laws contribute to those things. If anything, it significantly detracts from them by increasing unemployment and driving up prices.


...which means a highly productive work force - which is good for society. Having more billionaires but with one in five children living with food-insecurity in the richest nation on earth, is not good for any society.


http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=food-insecurityfood-insecurity

So, the reason why one in five US children are food-insecure is because the minimum wage isn't high enough?

[Archer0915]

But no health care to pay for. Cheaper, all around to automate. Obama care has killed more jobs than anything else has. As it was designed to do.

Yes health care is a big issue! In the US costs are higher because they can be. If you do not think there are ties:)

Obesity! Preventable but look at the crap food! The profits from said crap food!

Drugs for disease caused by crap food! Doctor billed created by crap food.

Now let us consider boards or directors here. Who sits on what board?

Some directors sit on many boards, some would call it a conflict of interest.

[Ethereal]

lol.

How's that herbicide on your lawn that you changed from 1 oz/gal to 50 oz/gal working for you, Tim the Toolman? Sod is about $0.80 a foot installed. Since you RWers love to pay people for not doing their jobs, I can come over and NOT install it for $0.50 per foot! What a deal, huh?

More nonresponsive gibberish.

[Ethereal]

Not really, it hasn't gone up. Might not depending on how it goes in November.

It accelerates the process relative to no minimum wage.

[Ethereal]

Nope. Just live in the American economy.

Okay, I live in the American economy as well. And I took college-level economics courses where we studied the laws of supply and demand and the effect that price floors (which is what a minimum wage is) have on the economy. You do believe in supply and demand, right?

[Ethereal]

Lol. Case in point.

Am I wrong? Or can only wealthy people be greedy?

[Ethereal]

Which isn't worth much if you don't make enough to afford a place to live or food to eat.

Still, it's better than nothing.

And how come these discussions about the minimum wage almost always revolve around increasing wages instead of making goods and services more affordable?

[Ethereal]

The Industrial Revolution changed all of that and moved us away from being an agrarian society. I would prefer a return to agrarianism but that pandora's box has already been opened. We have to adapt our outlook.

But it's not an either/or scenario. Individuals don't have to choose between purely agrarian and purely industrial. We can enjoy the fruits of both if we're smart. And farming is easier now than it ever was precisely because of technology. There is no reason why we cannot adapt agrarianism to the modern era.