Minimum wage. - page 3. | Bitcointalksearch.org

redandblack

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 10

Quote from: ezly on August 21, 2015, 01:46:01 PM

For the only way America can employ the max number of her own people is by allowing them once again to make what they consume. If you do not do that, then the middle class created when we allowed that will wither away and we will have a few very rich people at the top, a sliver of a middle class with most being working poor.

Making what we consume, and then using Ford's idea of paying the people enough to buy what they are making is the key.

America does allow her own people to make what they consume. Her own people choose not to consume it. Legislating giving people more money, isn't going to change their preferences.

Considering purchasing power, the USA doesn't have the largest economy in the world. The IMF, CIA Factbook, the world bank... all have us at number three. The E.U. passed us in 2012, China passed America in 2014. We want to change that, we need to get better at producing things folks want... not at hiring customers.

username18333

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Knowledge could but approximate existence.

Quote from: KriszDev on August 21, 2015, 02:23:57 PM

Less a consultant firm, more an economic institute. This has nothing to do with consumerism, cars televisions, or what they want. If it was based on what people wanted then the living wage would probably be much higher. It's all about what people need to live a basic lifestyle. That is to say one in which they aren't threatened by poverty.

Your position could be defined as the general standard of living 𝑋₁ minus some constant 𝐶. In which case, 𝑋ₙ would equal 𝑋ₙ₋₁ − 𝑘𝐶―leaving “the general standard of living” to decline ad infinitum.

KriszDev

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: rio3232 on August 21, 2015, 02:21:30 PM

again, some consultant firm gets to determine what a worker needs to live in an acceptable lifestyle? Why should said consultants get to decide if the worker should have a 70 inch TV? If the boss can have the big TV then so too should all employees.

Why should I accept a job washing cars and find out that I can't afford to buy the cars that I'm washing?

Less a consultant firm, more an economic institute. This has nothing to do with consumerism, cars televisions, or what they want. If it was based on what people wanted then the living wage would probably be much higher. It's all about what people need to live a basic lifestyle. That is to say one in which they aren't threatened by poverty.

rodzimajid

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 10

Quote from: Kenchaa on August 21, 2015, 02:13:24 PM

If it creates more jobs it by definition cannot simultaneously create a race for the bottom. Labor is a commodity like any other. The greater the demand for it the higher the price for it will be. The statement however only shows that it doesn't solve the problem it claims to solve and in fact cannot.

My post to yours was a question, what do you think eliminating/reducing the national min wage will do?
And cotton picking (for example) for $.10 a day are jobs we can do without.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/technology/foxconn-said-to-use-forced-student-labor-to-make-iphones.html?_r=0

rio3232

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

Quote from: KriszDev on August 21, 2015, 02:20:43 PM

Organisations who carry out economic analysis:

No, because the living wage is only done on a per person basis. Having children would entitle the worker to childcare benefits.

again, some consultant firm gets to determine what a worker needs to live in an acceptable lifestyle? Why should said consultants get to decide if the worker should have a 70 inch TV? If the boss can have the big TV then so too should all employees.

Why should I accept a job washing cars and find out that I can't afford to buy the cars that I'm washing?

username18333

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Knowledge could but approximate existence.

Quote from: KriszDev on August 21, 2015, 02:17:06 PM

You have [two] options, reduce wages or cut jobs.

Or, stimulate consumer spending (or government spending [perhaps, through some manner of World War {that gravely disrupts international competitors}]).

KriszDev

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: rio3232 on August 21, 2015, 02:19:14 PM

You keep dancing

who gets to determine what is "acceptable" ?

Organisations who carry out economic analysis:

Quote

If a worker becomes a parent and has twins, should the employer immediately increase salary because the strain of 2 extra mouths requires additional income?

No, because the living wage is only done on a per person basis. Having children would entitle the worker to childcare benefits.

rio3232

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

Quote from: KriszDev on August 21, 2015, 02:11:07 PM

The organisation which calculates the living wage was mentioned in the article. The term "decent life" is obviously subjective, no one has the same values and therefore what someone considered valuable won't be considered as being valuable by someone else. This is what Conservatives mean when they focus on individuals. However there is a way to calculate what people can be able to live on comfortably.

http://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/crsp/mis/
The methods used for calculating the living wage can be found here.
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/crsp/mis/thelivingwage/

You keep dancing

who gets to determine what is "acceptable" ?

If a worker becomes a parent and has twins, should the employer immediately increase salary because the strain of 2 extra mouths requires additional income?

What if an employee determines that they NEED to live in a better neighborhood, should the employer increase their salary?

Perhaps you are unaware of where your beliefs lie...................

"from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"

username18333

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Knowledge could but approximate existence.

Quote from: rio3232 on August 21, 2015, 02:15:02 PM

Socialism/liberalism always sounds good but in a competitive landscape, will always lose.

You define your metaphor (first, an ideology's merits being comparable to a pleasant tone) with yet another (second, success and failure within, presumably, a context of sport).

KriszDev

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: peterson33 on August 21, 2015, 02:05:03 PM

Well a blatant diversion and dodge attempt. What a surprise.

Notice I did not ask you to prove that "all studies" should increasing MW increases unemployment. I asked to prove your claim that "most studies" say this, as you claimed.

And that Republican piece from 1995 is the best you can come up with? Again, no surprise.

Quote

The employment effect of the minimum wage is one of the most studied topics in all of economics. This report examines the most recent wave of this research –roughly since 2000–to determine the best current estimates of the impact of increases in the minimum wage on the employment prospects of low-wage workers. The weight of that evidence points to little or no employment response to modest increases in the minimum wage.
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf

If the minimum wage rises marginally above inflation then of course it won't result in unemployment as rising prices, offset rising wages and therefore it's hard to argue against it. The problem come when you have a hike in the minimum wage, like the proposal to raise the minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour. However there can still be some problems say the economy is in recession, and there's a fall in demand. You have to options, reduce wages or cut jobs. In the UK wages were quite flexible during the great recession and so offset a fall in jobs. In the US unemployment rose to a higher level than in the UK. Reducing wages is probably better than cutting jobs, but if your workers are on a minimum wage then there's no flexibility.

rio3232

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

Quote from: peterson33 on August 21, 2015, 01:42:46 PM

So you're saying if you have two equal sales man, and one wants $50k and the other will work for $25k, you're going to hire the $50k one?

If not, what are you trying to say that is different than my post?

I have no $50k salespeople, it's more than double that. I'm always willing to listen to a person who is interested in less base and more variable comp. I'm all for risk/reward and will reward more to people who want to take risk. I can appreciate that as I took a huge risk by starting the company.

I'll always remember working for a very big company. There were a few of us in our distict who had the best numbers of productivity (road job but not sales) and some of us were literally doing double the amount of work of others. Come raise time, top performers might see 4-5% while lower performers would get 2-3%

What happened was I and others left and the place was left with the less productive. It's a nice academic discussion to try and mandate equity but the performers will either stop performing or move on to a place where they are compensated based upon performance. Or, some like me go forth and start businesses.

Socialism/liberalism always sounds good but in a competitive landscape, will always lose.

username18333

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Knowledge could but approximate existence.

Quote from: abasin on August 21, 2015, 02:08:24 PM

Somehow you can just raise someone's pay above the market wage and there is no effect on hiring and unemployment.

(Colorization mine.)

The matter is not so much the pay of the "unspecified individual" as it is a matter of an entire sub-population thereof that pervades its wider super-population.

Kenchaa

newbie

Activity: 30

Merit: 0

Quote from: rodzimajid on August 21, 2015, 02:06:03 PM

So you believe eliminating min wage will? (dont want to put words in your mouth)
Its necessary, were capitalist...only money makes money here. Here is what i think would happen with out it.
It wont lower cost of living.
It will create more jobs.
It will create a race to the economic bottom.
It wont improve quality of life.
And only those whom are not in a position to make there money work for them will suffer.

If it creates more jobs it by definition cannot simultaneously create a race for the bottom. Labor is a commodity like any other. The greater the demand for it the higher the price for it will be. The statement however only shows that it doesn't solve the problem it claims to solve and in fact cannot.

tommorisonwebdesign

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

I've seen business managers fire employees due to labor costs or find other means to eliminate manual labor. As we move into the age of technology, things become easier and less expensive to do over time. Increasing the minimum wage is a real socialist thing that ensures money to the unskilled. With the way the economy is going these days, traditional minimum wage jobs in my mind are not the best way to get ahead. At the moment, working online here and there and finding the occasional high paying gig is how real money is made today.

KriszDev

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

In public policy, a living wage is the minimum income necessary for a worker to meet their needs that are considered to be basic.[1] This is not necessarily the same as subsistence, which refers to a biological minimum, though the two terms are commonly confused. These needs include shelter (housing) and other incidentals such as clothing and nutrition. In some nations such as the United Kingdom and Switzerland, this standard generally means that a person working forty hours a week, with no additional income, should be able to afford the basics for quality of life, food, utilities, transport, health care, minimal recreation, one course a year to upgrade their education, and childcare. However, in many cases education, saving for retirement, and less commonly legal fees and insurance, or taking care of a sick or elderly family member are not included. It also does not allow for debt repayment of any kind. In addition to this definition, living wage activists further define a living wage as the wage equivalent to the poverty line for a family of four. This is two adults working full-time with one child age 9 and another of age 4.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage

KriszDev

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: rio3232 on August 21, 2015, 01:24:19 PM

all fluff: no meat on the bone

I gave specifics with specific questions

Who gets to determine what is included in a living wage? To some, having cable tv with all of the sports channels is a necessity. Having an I-Phone and annual upgrades is a neccessity. A fairly new car for each driver is a necessity.

Why should a person working the snack bar at the theater have to live in a studio apartment sharing rent with another snack bar employee while the general manager owns a 3 bedroom home? They both put in the hours so why should the manager own a home? The only solution is to reduce the income of the general manager and reduce his/her standard of living downward, because history shows that govt policies do not lift up people. Do you agree that there should be equity in lifestyle of the general manager and the snack bar employee if they work the same number of hours?

The organisation which calculates the living wage was mentioned in the article. The term "decent life" is obviously subjective, no one has the same values and therefore what someone considered valuable won't be considered as being valuable by someone else. This is what Conservatives mean when they focus on individuals. However there is a way to calculate what people can be able to live on comfortably.

http://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/crsp/mis/
The methods used for calculating the living wage can be found here.
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/crsp/mis/thelivingwage/

username18333

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Knowledge could but approximate existence.

Quote from: abasin on August 21, 2015, 02:07:38 PM

No surprise that you dismiss the results of 50 years worth of studies simply because it disagrees with your pro-Democrat Party narrative.

(Colorization mine.)

Quantum mechanics could not have supplanted Newtonian mechanics had this line of reasoning been considered sound.

abasin

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

Quote from: peterson33 on August 21, 2015, 02:05:03 PM

The employment effect of the minimum wage is one of the most studied topics in all of economics. This report examines the most recent wave of this research –roughly since 2000–to determine the best current estimates of the impact of increases in the minimum wage on the employment prospects of low-wage workers. The weight of that evidence points to little or no employment response to modest increases in the minimum wage.
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf

Right because basic economic principles that are taught on even the most liberal college campuses are wrong. Your cherry picked sources say so. Somehow you can just raise someone's pay above the market wage and there is no effect on hiring and unemployment. Who knew there was such a thing as a free lunch?

abasin

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

Quote from: peterson33 on August 21, 2015, 02:05:03 PM

Well a blatant diversion and dodge attempt. What a surprise.

Notice I did not ask you to prove that "all studies" should increasing MW increases unemployment. I asked to prove your claim that "most studies" say this, as you claimed.

And that Republican piece from 1995 is the best you can come up with? Again, no surprise.

No surprise that you dismiss the results of 50 years worth of studies simply because it disagrees with your pro-Democrat Party narrative.

rodzimajid

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 10

Quote from: Kenchaa on August 21, 2015, 12:49:33 PM

It is the typical leftist form over substance solution to poverty that rather than alleviating poverty spreads it.

So you believe eliminating min wage will? (dont want to put words in your mouth)
Its necessary, were capitalist...only money makes money here. Here is what i think would happen with out it.
It wont lower cost of living.
It will create more jobs.
It will create a race to the economic bottom.
It wont improve quality of life.
And only those whom are not in a position to make there money work for them will suffer.

Topic: Minimum wage. - page 3. (Read 4816 times)