Topic: A Society that can use system with Base wage (Read 1226 times)

This has been a big problem. If you look at the amount someone would earn at a min. wage job, then calculate 40 hours (full-time) per week. After taxes they are still living a minimalist lifestyle. I know people who work full-time and still have to live with their parents because they can't afford to be on their own.

Lets say the United States is imposing a minimum base wage of $30 per hour ($240 per day, $60,000 per year). Some 200 million people are in the economically active category in the US. Even if 50% of them make use of this base wage (Right now 80% earns less than $30 ph), it will cost the government some $6 trillion per year. From where will this much money come from?

What makes you think that current taxation is wisely spend and that in order to have a minimum income it'd be necessary to raise taxes? Just by curtailing the tax avoidance that's taking place on the top companies you got your problem solved. I mean it's kinda sad to see people that are apparently ok with the idea of funding nukes through their tax money but are quite resistant towards any  social program.

Regarding the "as long as s/he get's a job" attitude. Who holds the bargaining position when it comes to a job? Why should the grandchild of a landowner who got his property by a mad king be in the favour of the state (guarantee of property)?

A base wage is nice in theory as long as people still have an incentive to work and improve their own standard of living.
As in they do not just leech from the base wage perpetually and become a drain to the system itself.
Of course this means a higher rate of taxation so people should be able to enjoy a balance between a base wage and higher taxation to cover better quality services.
As for France it just overburdened the Rich with ridiculous tax rates no wonder they moved, any of these type of systems need to have a strong foundation to be built upon not a shaky one as a reaction for the country bad misaligned financial management.

And that is why this idea is not viable. In order to fund the new base wage, the government needs to increase the tax rates (all the taxes, income tax, VAT, corporate tax.etc). The problem is that, too much tax kills tax, as a French analyst pointed out a few days ago. A prime example can be found here:

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-27602312

I'm fully in favour of the OP's idea. I mean the state/government (and society since it's the official representative) is just a servant of the upper social strata, mostly as protector of property. Hence, if the state has enough money to pay cops to suppress the population or just plain beat up people and masquerade that as "protection from criminals", wage wars to promote special interests, etc etc, then they should be able to fund a living standard income. Right?

If true then wouldn't you expect minimum wage to correlate with any metric for violent crime and thievery?

I agree with this concept, but this would also mean that we would be working for a common good, for society as a whole, for the good of people and sadly that is utopic because we can only think about ourselves and not about others.

Don't be so stingy Little.

At least make it $30 per hour. 

You need to look at the before and after to understand what a higher minimum wage would do.  I am only going to comment on the USA as other countries have differences in structure that will cause differing outcomes.

Right now:
Many low wage jobs have replaced manufacturing jobs that would pay a living wage.
Many people work in low wage jobs because higher wage jobs are not available due to a changing economy. 
Many of the people earning lower wages get government subsidies (food stamps etc) to make up for the low wage.

After $15 minimum wage
Raising wages at places like Walmart and KFC would have an affect on prices but the affect would probably be less then 5%.
Many taxes would be saved because people with jobs would be less reliant on government subsidies.
Very few jobs at the bigger companies would be lost as a percentage. 
Smaller companies would be more hurt especially non chain restaurants  and small stores.  Those jobs would not go away, they would be replaced in bigger companies as the smaller ones went under. 
Many consumers would have more purchasing power, more than the inflation caused by the price increases BUT the middle class would gain little or no additional money and would be effected by inflaction.

------------
In the end the poor would benefit, the government would benefit  (more taxable wages and less subsidies) and the middle class would be FURTHER hurt. 

I think this will happen in the end.  The middle class in America cannot seem to get a break. 

thats really messed up, why dont you go work for that much, this is why USA is in shit now

How about fixing the minimum wage at $.50 an hour? Or $.60? Hey, nobody said minimum wage should make you rich, right? There are millions in India who would be happy to work 50 hours a week for that kind of money. Now, what about the people who are unable to do anything worth 50 cents in one hour of work? They will stay out of the job market and live on state benefits if they're lucky enough to live in a country where that exists, otherwise, they will die.

Yep.  'Cause I don't mind dropping $400 on a lunch at KFC, as long the kid behind the counter that hates his job can buy that new Porsche.

Grand Idea while we at it, we should give free 401K with that base wage.

You're not generous enough... $10,000 per hour. Happy times, happy times... clap, clap, clap... Yayyyyyy!!!!

It's easy.  Pass a law making the minimum wage $1,000 per hour.

Problem solved.

It's so easy I often wonder why the authoritarian collectivists didn't think of this sooner. 

Given: A base wage for every "citizen" is good.

Premise 1: A society with a base wage will be more productive.
Premise 2: Society will have fewer poor individuals.
Premise 3: A base wage will raise the standard of living.


What you're really saying...

It's okay to use violence to take the property of another. Or do you expect people to do this in a charitable fashion? In which case, I'd likely go along with it.

What will actually happen:

1. Society will become more violent by nature and theft more prevalent due to the fact you're encouraging that type of behavior. This is what we call the "entitlement" attitude. It's a fancy word for "justifiable thievery".

2. A temporary shift of property will transfer into the hands of the poorer class (base wage earner). It's likely this money/assets/property will be squandered which would have happened anyway without the entitlement program in the first place.

3. The poor will eventually become poor again, unless they try to change their lot in life by providing a service or product other's will desire (getting an education might help, maybe???). Just having stuff doesn't necessarily make you resourceful or productive.

4. The purchasing power of all individuals as a whole, over a period of time, will stabilize back to where it was previously, or go down, benefiting the poor over the short term. If you increase the money stock (inflation), you aren't creating anything. It's just numbers in a computer, or ink on paper. Altering raw materials into things/items which are desirable to another person is what improves the condition of the individual, and society as a whole. Money is nothing more than an accounting method. Although it can serve some other intrinsic purpose from time to time.

5. It doesn't matter if the base wage is 1 unit of money or 1,000,000 units of money, the purchasing power will eventually stabilize, unless we're talking about hard currencies, in which case, you will create a civil war. Nobody will tolerate stealing for too long (they tend to take it personal when they worked hard for their livelihood to only have it taken away from them to give it to somebody else who didn't earn it).

6. And as we're already aware, wars are not profitable. In fact, they're purely destructive. It's a lose-lose for everybody.



TL;DR: Don't steal, don't inflate. It isn't nice, and it tends to lead to violent behavior.

Actually I don't care.  I just used it as an example.  Replace that with TV, computer, car, etc..  The point is the same.

I was joking and you took it to serious of what I said

If you want what society offers--even if that is sitting on your ass watching Jerry and Montel, how can you rant about having to fit in?...