Minimum wage

Topic's posts
Posts in total: 148
The minimum wage should be $0.00/hour.  If a person doesn't like their job due to lack of salary, the government could provide them with a job that pays more because there is a lot of stuff that needs to get done.
Life doesn't work like that buddy.

The government can hand jobs to people who are unskilled in those area. Even jobs with minimal hard working labor like Electricians and Plumbers need a form of education. Plus these are privately owned business. Government takeover is overstepping the lines and causing a socialist work force if that is what you wan't. Since you have an American flag, I assume you hate communism/socialism  
I'm not suggestion the government take over McDonalds and other capitalist enterprises.  I don't think this is causing socialism.  Socialism is taxing everyone 100% so everyone can have the same stuff.  Democratic Socialism, which is also garbage is taxing a relatively high percentage and the benefits being socialized.  I instead have 3 main jobs that the government could hire people for, none of which are being occupied by current industries, therefore not infringing on Capitalism:

1. Building solar panels in the South west.  Solar fields the collective size of Vermont could power the whole country with batteries and we have way more then that amount of space in the desert.  If the entirety of the south west desert is filled with solar panels, the US could become independent of the middle east, therefore eliminating the influence of countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran.  This means Shariah law becomes less prominent and influential in energy trade, which is great for freedom.  The US could afford to give sanctions to the middle east and could trade solar energy with Europe, therefore taking influence away from the middle east.

2. Rebuilding the houses in PR.  However much it costs to rebuild the homes, they can be sold for a higher price to mainland Americans who want someplace tropical to live.  This creates profit, therefore reducing taxes.  It also Americanizes PR, making them less likely to break away to form their own country.  Some jobs will go to Electricians and Plumbers but many of the jobs can go towards people that would otherwise work minimum wage jobs.  

3. Using the place and take method against Russia.  Place and take is placing a bunch of immigrants into a foreign country so the form a majority and taking the land they occupy.  Here's an overview of some history:

Russia applied the "place and take" method on the Crimean peninsula.  The peninsula used to be Ethnically Ukrainian.  Once Russia applied place and take to the peninsula during the times of the USSR, the peninsula became mostly Russian.  This allowed Russia to make claims to the peninsula.  If Russia can do it to Ukraine, the US can apply place and take to Russia in retaliation, especially with Russia's open boarder immigration policies (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-03-14/russia-s-alternative-universe-immigrants-welcome).  This would mean that if Russia wanted Russian Majority Crimea, they would have to give up the land that Americans settles in the eastern part of the country.  We only would take land about equivalent in value to Crimea.  This way, Russia can get Crimea, the US can get a big piece of Asia in roughly equivalent value, and Ukraine can get paid by the US for the land that they lost because if Russia hasn't paid Ukraine for the land yet, I don't think they will.  If Russia wants any more land from Ukraine, they would know that the US would be there to make sure it evens out and that Ukraine gets restitution.  For anyone who doesn't like the cold, the place and take method would play out in much of the warm Caribbean.  There are some areas in the Caribbean that I would like to make US states.  This way even the old people who don't like the cold Russian climate can participate in the expansion.

That is the minimum wage. Look at interns and shit
For adults who need the salary, the minimum wage should be $0.00 because of the reason that I stated above.
317 days later
Bump 
Im with the dems that we need a minimum wage. Cause supply and demand are subject to many more variables and the invisible hand is nonsense.

But a flat nation wide 15 is insane. It would work great for cities, but it would decimate rural communities with much lower cost of living, and much smaller economies.

--> @Nemiroff
Im with the dems that we need a minimum wage. Cause supply and demand are subject to many more variables and the invisible hand is nonsense.

But a flat nation wide 15 is insane. It would work great for cities, but it would decimate rural communities with much lower cost of living, and much smaller economies.


Such as?
--> @Athias
Ill gladly supply some examples, but do you really think the largest economy in the world with many different industries intersect, has only 2 basic, economics 101, factors?

First factor is need. In supply vs demand freshman class you learn that if you raise the price too high, people will stop buying. Sounds simple, except for markets like medicine. When it comes to your life, like with insulin but also many other medications, who cares about money. You will pay anything. So price setting goes out the window. There are other examples of this, like transportation. there is a big gap in upfront cost between transportation and vehicle ownership, which leaves alot of room for unjustified price gouging. People need to get to work.
You will say competition will solve this, but in the real world competitors can communicate, and collude. This has happened before until the government made it illegal. Competition is the friend of capitalism, but the enemy of capitalists (owners). 

Another problem is also need, but from the perspective of workers. I think history has proven people will work under some terrible conditions if they dont have options. So claiming some invisible hand will set the right wages might work in a mom and pop tiny economy where there are nearly as many bosses as workers.... but not in the modern goliath economy. Low wage workers are given few options, even while doing crucial, heavy work simply because there are a ton of other workers. The value of their work means nothing if the value of the worker is zero. I dont think citizens of the richest nation in the world should be treated this way, nor will this sustain a consumer driven economy.


So In essence, the extra factors involve greed and opportunity. Not a market opportunity for a in demand product, but the opportunity to skew the supply demand curve away from people without power, like the sick and the laborers.
--> @Nemiroff
First factor is need. In supply vs demand freshman class you learn that if you raise the price too high, people will stop buying.
No. You learn that the law of demand delineates that as the price of a commodity increases the quantity demanded decreases, not that people would stop buying. Also the law of supply and demand is a model which presumes homogeneity (all factors equal.) Hence, I inquired about these "variables." 

except for markets like medicine. When it comes to your life, like with insulin but also many other medications, who cares about money. You will pay anything.
Because the price elasticity of demand in that industry is relatively inelastic. So hikes in wages can be extended to the final product, of which the AMA, for example, takes advantage.

There are other examples of this, like transportation. there is a big gap in upfront cost between transportation and vehicle ownership, which leaves alot of room for unjustified price gouging. People need to get to work.
Provide an example.

You will say competition will solve this, but in the real world competitors can communicate, and collude.
Do they? If they're competitors, how do they "collude"? Which markets has this collusion affected, whether past or current?

This has happened before until the government made it illegal. Competition is the friend of capitalism, but the enemy of capitalists (owners). 
When has it happened it before?

I think history has proven people will work under some terrible conditions if they dont have options. So claiming some invisible hand will set the right wages might work in a mom and pop tiny economy where there are nearly as many bosses as workers.... but not in the modern goliath economy.
The "invisible hand" doesn't claim to "set the right wages;" it claims to facilitate free labor contracts where buyers and sellers of labor can establish arrangements to which each party willfully agrees.

Low wage workers are given few options, even while doing crucial, heavy work simply because there are a ton of other workers.
Yes, it's known as the Law of Diminishing Marginal Productivity.

The value of their work means nothing if the value of the worker is zero. I dont think citizens of the richest nation in the world should be treated this way, nor will this sustain a consumer driven economy.
That is your impression; that is not Economics.


--> @Athias
Economics is not set in stone.

Therefore your economics is also "your impression". 

Nonetheless, minimum wage is not simply about pure economics, other factors need to be taken into account.

A world leader and world example setter such as the U.S.A cannot pontificate on the world stage if it fails to address social justice at home .
Minimum wages usually don't help the poorest people that they're supposed to help and this youtube video explains it in more detail.
--> @zedvictor4
Economics is not set in stone.
What does this mean?

Therefore your economics is also "your impression". 
Which one of my statements is an "impression"? Furthermore, what is "my economics"?

Nonetheless, minimum wage is not simply about pure economics, other factors need to be taken into account.
...like?

A world leader and world example setter such as the U.S.A cannot pontificate on the world stage if it fails to address social justice at home .
Social justice is not about justice; it's about a infantilizing a populace under the pretext of "entitlement" rather than a system of rights.
--> @Christen
Minimum wages usually don't help the poorest people that they're supposed to help and this youtube video explains it in more detail.
The minimum wage creates unemployment by pricing out low-skilled labor which falls below the price floor. It takes those whose marginal productivity doesn't meet the state arbitration and makes their employment illegal. Using your video as an example, I wonder whether those who write these policies have asked their supposed constituents whether they'd rather work for $7.25 or nothing.

--> @Athias
A promise to tie this back to your question of the invisible hand in the very next post, but please humor me:

What are your feelings on trump's trade war with china?
--> @Nemiroff
A promise to tie this back to your question of the invisible hand in the very next post, but please humor me:

What are your feelings on trump's trade war with china?

I don't have "feelings" on the matter, because truth be told, I don't pay much attention to U.S. politics. My conclusion on this "trade war" is that it's nonsensical as both China and the U.S. are worse off. Trump is only making domestic labor a lot more expensive by extending these tariffs (in effect taxes) on Chinese products. China's retaliation won't bode well for the U.S. automobile and crude oil industries. Nevertheless, this pageant of presidential bravado is par for the course.
--> @Athias
sorry for the distraction. the politics are foreign to you so that was a dead end.

No. You learn that the law of demand delineates that as the price of a commodity increases the quantity demanded decreases, not that people would stop buying. Also the law of supply and demand is a model which presumes homogeneity (all factors equal.) Hence, I inquired about these "variables." 



Because the price elasticity of demand in that industry is relatively inelastic. So hikes in wages can be extended to the final product, of which the AMA, for example, takes advantage.


as you said, the model presumes homogenity (all factors equal), my variables are those factors, and if they are unequal the model fails.
for example, no matter how much you hike the price of medicine, demand wont decrease until the people who need them die.

the price of medicines will not be affected as there are very few minimum wage people who contribute to the final product.
rent, nearly 50% of many peoples cost is mostly dependant on inherent land value and not any form of labor. thats a substantial win for low income people. 

I think history has proven people will work under some terrible conditions if they dont have options. So claiming some invisible hand will set the right wages might work in a mom and pop tiny economy where there are nearly as many bosses as workers.... but not in the modern goliath economy.
The "invisible hand" doesn't claim to "set the right wages;" it claims to facilitate free labor contracts where buyers and sellers of labor can establish arrangements to which each party willfully agrees.
As I said, history has shown people will willfully agree to whatever conditions they are presented with, including slavery. Corporations provide the bulk of employment and they dont negotiate. this is the wage, take it or leave. leaving means no food, so they take it.

as i said, this may work in an economy of all small mom and pop shops, but otherwise, this is just a logical theory on paper that falls apart in reality.
as costs go up, if wages stay the same, more and more people will be priced out of the economy, then the economy collapses. as fewer consumers remain in the economy, businesses will need to raise prices since they will be making fewer sales. theyll offer fewer products too.

logic can work both ways, but only one way is real, and minimum wage hikes have not shown any losses of jobs besides one industry, the restaurant industry. while other industries actually boomed and made up the difference.


results speak for themselves.
remember, these corporations are highly profitable. they aren't struggling, and a few have treasuries larger then some nations.
i'm all for small business exceptions if needed, but these goliaths crying victim is pathetic. they're just getting richer selling you idealistic propaganda.
--> @Nemiroff
sorry for the distraction. the politics are foreign to you so that was a dead end.
It's not foreign to me; I just don't pay attention much anymore. Modern politics is pageantry.

as you said, the model presumes homogenity (all factors equal), my variables are those factors, and if they are unequal the model fails.
The model doesn't fail per se. It's a generalization, so it doesn't capture all individual circumstances.

for example, no matter how much you hike the price of medicine, demand wont decrease until the people who need them die.
Not true at all. What about generics? One of the current and primary issues with the cost of medicine are drug patents. If the government were to remove its sanctions of these patents, drugs would a lot cheaper, given that generics wouldn't be stalled from market entry for about 10 years. This is an example of how freeing the market (removing government regulation) makes products cheaper (competition, i.e. entry of generics.) The demand is merely a response to government sanction monopolies/oligopolies select drug companies sustain in the industry.

As I said, history has shown people will willfully agree to whatever conditions they are presented with, including slavery. Corporations provide the bulk of employment and they dont negotiate. this is the wage, take it or leave. leaving means no food, so they take it.
One cannot willfully agree to a slave contract because it's a slave contract. And, I would imagine that corporations provide the bulk of employment otherwise, the laborers would be either self-employed or unemployed. You however as of yet not demonstrated the reasons laborers are entitled to more than the offers of said corporations.

as costs go up, if wages stay the same, more and more people will be priced out of the economy, then the economy collapses.
So then, why is the solution to force a price floor rather than address the increasing costs?

logic can work both ways, but only one way is real, and minimum wage hikes have not shown any losses of jobs besides one industry, the restaurant industry. while other industries actually boomed and made up the difference.
Job losses and unemployment aren't one in the same. One is disemployment, the other is the populace out of the labor force. The minimum wage creates unemployment by pricing out low-skilled labor. That is, for example, a person whose marginal productivity is $14.99 and below, would be priced out of the labor market because of a $15 minimum. It's not that the person loses his job; he can't get one (legally.)


results speak for themselves.
remember, these corporations are highly profitable. they aren't struggling, and a few have treasuries larger then some nations.
I'm already familiar with this study. The study doesn't outright state that its conclusions suggest moderate increases to the minimum wage (usually to reflect inflation) doesn't result in significant job losses. However, that study doesn't address at all whom the minimum wage prices out, just the effect on those who already have a job in the food service industry, all other industries not withstanding.

i'm all for small business exceptions if needed, but these goliaths crying victim is pathetic. they're just getting richer selling you idealistic propaganda.
What's the idealistic propoganda? And what do these Goliaths owe a laborer in their offer of employment?
--> @Alec
Why did you make two?


--> @Athias
1) Economics is variable data, so therefore one must expect variable output.

2) So your impression is one example of variable data output. As was that of Nemiroff.

3) You either respect society as a human collective or you do not. People are real and money is an associated construct.

4) Social justice is what it is and once again your impression is your impression.


--> @zedvictor4
Economics is variable data, so therefore one must expect variable output.
Economics is the reasoning, not the data.

So your impression is one example of variable data output. As was that of Nemiroff.
Cite the specific statement.

You either respect society as a human collective or you do not. People are real and money is an associated construct.
How is this a "factor"?

Social justice is what it is and once again your impression is your impression.
It's not an impression; it's an analysis.



--> @Athias
Economics

Reasoning

Specifics

Factors

Impressions

Analysis

It's all acquired, assimilated, stored, rehashed and outputted data.

And I'm certain that you fully understand every point that I make, because you clearly have enough intelligence.
--> @zedvictor4
Economics

Reasoning

Specifics

Factors

Impressions

Analysis

It's all acquired, assimilated, stored, rehashed and outputted data.

And I'm certain that you fully understand every point that I make, because you clearly have enough intelligence.

My intelligence is a non-factor in your explaining your statements. (And you have not done so.)
--> @zedvictor4
The minimum wage creates unemployment by pricing out low-skilled labor. That is, for example, a person whose marginal productivity is $14.99 and below, would be priced out of the labor market because of a $15 minimum. It's not that the person loses his job; he can't get one (legally.)
There's also the fact that when you need low-skilled labor whose marginal productivity is 14.99 and below, but can't hire someone to work for 14.99 or less because of the minimum wages, you then start making robots that can do that low-skilled labor.

For example, if I am the employer and I hire you to work for me and do work that is worth 14 dollars an hour, both you and I benefit from this, because I get low-skilled labor that I can pay 14 dollars an hour for, and you benefit because you have a job, you are earning easy money doing easy labor, and can afford to pay for things. When the minimum wage goes up to 15 dollars an hour, and then I suddenly can't afford to pay you, I simply fire you and replace you with a robot to do that easy labor that you were originally doing. The minimum wage has now hurt you more than it helped you there, because you now have no job, and cannot make money to pay for what you need, and now I have a robot working your job for free, instead of you working that job and making the money you need. This is what's actually happening nowadays; jobs are being lost to robots as the years go by because of minimum wages, and any business that cannot, for whatever reason, use a robot to replace the worker, will lose profits, and/or go out of business.

Minimum wages do more harm than good because they make it impossible for people whose work isn't worth that minimum wage to get employed. Minimum wages should be whatever the employer(s) and employee(s) agree to, and if neither side can agree on what the minimum wage for them should be, only then should the government intervene and set a minimum wage like 15 dollars. If I agree with my employer to work for 1 dollar an hour, then yes, I am working for a very small amount of money and probably won't be able to afford things, but that is still my choice and the employer's choice. If I agree with my employer to work for free just for the sake of gaining work experience, then that's my choice.

You cannot artificially force an employer to pay someone a minimum wage if they don't want to, and if you try to implement a law requiring that you be paid more than you're worth, you either get fired and replaced with a robot, you get your work hours reduced to compensate for the minimum wage, or the employer goes out of business.

minimum wage hikes have not shown any losses of jobs besides one industry, the restaurant industry.
B.S.

When you artificially increase minimum wages, 1 of 4 things will happen.
3) Employers reduce work hours to compensate for the increase
4) Employers go out of business

If you want more money, you work harder, you be more productive, you be more smart with your money, you make smarter life choices, you find a job that naturally pays more, you find a way to make your work more valuable, and/or you incentivize people to pay you more, not try to force them to pay you more with arbitrary laws that do more harm than good.
--> @Athias, @Christen
Would either of you be willing for a debate on minimum wage?