It's June 16, 2024, 06:52:41 AM
in order for capitalism to work, min wage cannot be livable.
But I think it still in needed. There are some people that need it, and they work two min wage jobs just be able to afford top ramon and rent.
I think though that min wage is necessary, because if a business really wants to save money, they'd go to Thailand no matter what. Americans have a think again working for a livable wage.
If we can't eat off our wages, then we usually don't take the job. If a business really wants, they'd take their business to Thailand. There are plenty of other things that make Thailand cheaper aside from wages of labor. Try land, fewer taxes, work conditions, and their money is worth less, so you can get more for American dollars. So 4 other reasons aside from min wage why businesses are leaving, and that's a quick 2 second type.
Quote from: M Dogg of the Elite on September 12, 2006, 06:31:58 AMin order for capitalism to work, min wage cannot be livable.What do you mean by "work?" The definition of "work" here is very vague. Capitalism can "work" with $20 /hr minimum wage, it just won't function as "efficiently." The question of capitalism "working" is really off-base. I think you want to suggest that other economic systems could "work better." So, what economic system would "work better" with a "livable" minimum wage? Quote from: M Dogg of the Elite on September 12, 2006, 06:31:58 AMBut I think it still in needed. There are some people that need it, and they work two min wage jobs just be able to afford top ramon and rent.What Trauma said is entirely true. You really need to look at "quality" or "skill level" of people at the minimum wage leve. I don't disagree that there are "good" "hard-working" people that get paid minimum wage. I don't disagree that some people are paid less than they deserve. Of course, there are also people that are paid more than they deserve. But, people who are pro living wages have this mistaken assumption that everyone making minimum wages are good, hard working people that are screwed by corporate America. Really this is not the case. It's not difficult to earn a job paying greater than minimum wage. The reality of the world is that there are LOTS of people who are incredibly low-skilled and have a horrible work ethic. Unless you can face this reality, you're opinion is going to be horribly biased. Quote from: M Dogg of the Elite on September 12, 2006, 06:31:58 AMI think though that min wage is necessary, because if a business really wants to save money, they'd go to Thailand no matter what. Americans have a think again working for a livable wage.I'll assume you didn't specifically mean Thailand, and more generally meant any country with low cost labor. Anyways, this statement is entirely untrue. Some points:- Many low wage / low skill jobs cannot be outsourced. The supermarket can't hire a guy living in India to bag your groceries.- Many companies need to operate in the United States. How can a retailer runs its stores with employees living in a foreign country?- Many companies don't want to move overseas. Private business owners and managers often like living in their home country and do not particularly jump for joy at the prospect of making a few extra bucks by moving to India where they can get lower cost labor.- Companies CANNOT just pack their bags, backup database, and move their operation overseas EASILY. It's not very easy to move from one building to another when your lease expires, let alone move your manufacturing operation across continents. Even moving state to state is costly and challenging. The risks involved with relocating are often so great business that often need to relocate won't because of risk aversion. Most businesses don't have massive manuals on "how to run this company" instead, their understanding of the company is ingrained in the thinking of their employees. Not only is it logistically challenging and costly to relocate. But when you move you have to restaff with brand new people that know nothing about your business. You have to find people to replaced "experienced" people, and you have to find them fast. It's really just not that easy.Quote from: M Dogg of the Elite on September 12, 2006, 06:31:58 AM If we can't eat off our wages, then we usually don't take the job. If a business really wants, they'd take their business to Thailand. There are plenty of other things that make Thailand cheaper aside from wages of labor. Try land, fewer taxes, work conditions, and their money is worth less, so you can get more for American dollars. So 4 other reasons aside from min wage why businesses are leaving, and that's a quick 2 second type.Again, same as above. Hopefully by now your reconsidering some of your assumptions. I don't mean to attack you. I think you're well intentioned, but honestly, this logic is faulty.----Ok, so final point, and this is the best summation of the issue I can offer.If both sides approach the "living wage" issue with good intentions here is core of the issue: What matters more "efficiency" or "equality"? I mean equality in the sense of the gap between rich and poor. Those of us with good intentions value both, but some people think the loss of "efficiency" out weigh the gains of "equality." There are benefits to both sides. Philsophically, I believe that greater "equality" yields greater happiness, but this is a subjective opinion. "Efficiency" is also can create happiness. And is happiness really the appropriate goal? Probably it is, but its dangerous to think in absolutes.However, even if you think that "happiness" is the ultimate goal. There are other issues to consider. What if policies that attempt to promote "equality" hurt "efficiency" so much that they decrease societies happiness? This happened in most communist economies. They tried so hard for equality, that the economy became so inefficient, that poverty rose, and unhappiness did too. This is an oversimplication of course, but I think the point is relevant.So, personally, I think the best question is:How can we balance our desire to promote "efficiency" and "equality" so that we maximize happiness? If you look at it this way, we start coming up with much different answers than the straight forward. "Let's raise the minimum wage." This is the view that I believe the author of this article takes, and I believe his answer is worth some consideration. I'll end with it:"A better weapon to fight poverty is the Earned Income Tax Credit, a provision of the income tax system that supplements the income of low-wage workers. Like any spending program, this policy has the cost of higher taxes on everyone else. But those costs are smaller than the unemployment that results from high minimum wages."
you know what ant, i dont think you wrote all of that yourself.
There are some systems where no one is poor, but at the same time, no one is rich.
That would not work in the U.S. It's our culture to want more, and that's not a bad thing. It's that culture of hard work, and trying to get more that took us to the moon, and made us the riches country in world history. And if everyone makes 20/hr., inflation will adjust and $20/hr. will equal 5.50/hr. Livable min wage will make it so that inflation will catch up, and liveable will once again be unlivable.
With wages, there has to be a limit, one because Americans wouldn't work a job that don't pay what they want
two, because business people should at least somewhat rewarded for their work.
If someone is making 3.25/hr. they might as well collect welfare, or they might as well be a pan handler. Hell, some pan handlers make 100s a day. There has to be some reward for working.
You punish people who are working, when lazy people are making more money for doing nothing.
All this for a cheaper Whooper? There are hard working people, so well trying to punish the upcoming teenage (who I have no problem with them making less than min wage, when I manage them, most of them said they still get most their money from their mom and dad anyways
Min Wage is good, it keeps people fo having work be not worth it. I had a guy who had to quit work because daycare cost were more than his income. This is penalizing working, and rewarding "laziness." We should reward work, but I agree, min wage cannot be livable.Min wage has to be a starting point, and a worker can move up. The average min wage worker will not be making min wage after 3 to 6 months, most businesses like to retain workers, so they will give usually a 20 cent raise. So min wage workers would be there forever. But there should be some reward for working,after all, money was meant to messure work ethic, and is a tool made so people can feel rewarded from work.