Do you believe in a living wage?

Read it in context with the full post and it should make sense.

 

Its a little different though isnt it? A good, hard working person with a will to succeed will work their way out of it. But a person wrongly accused and having the full weight of the judicial system against them.

If you want to take this from a philosophical stand point then please draw accurate comparisons.

Did we get out of it on our own? No. Did we get out because of government help? Certainly not. My VA benefits didnt come through until long after I started working again and had actually started my own buisness.

 

Philosophically, I am merely saying that if there is but one instance of true injustice, then the system must adapt.

Back to my specific; sure, the justice system has a weight and deliberateness to it. But the market, with its invisible hand, has its own weight to it, even if it itself is not specifically deliberate. And even then, there are aspects about it which we can make deliberate, such as tax cuts or fiscal policy, or the Earned Income Tax Credit for families.
How much effort does it take to get a good lawyer and get out of a legal jam? How much effort does it take to get a good job to get out of a bad layoff or injury? Or to get past your own ignorance in a failing education system, or the unplanned child, or the debt that you were never taught to manage?
Admittedly, the comparison is getting fuzzier and fuzzier, but my end point is that the effort required to overcome a system's failings should be equal for all Americans, whether you are born lucky or unlucky.

And it is great that you were able to get out without government assistance, but you know deep down there is someone else, perhaps many others, like you who tried their damndest and still can't catch a break. I could care less about lazy people if there is any body of genuinely deserving people that have stretched their personal safety net and must now seek outside assistance.

 

First, you still haven't addressed my point or my question: "Look, I've yet to hear of a single "living wage" proposal that didn't entail forcing an employer to pay more than market value. Can you name any such "work" towards a minimum wage that doesn't?"

That's not what market value is, and that is a pretty useless way of approaching value. Labor is a service, it has a value, like a good - and if you view value of labor as the limit which an employer would be willing to pay, then conversely the value of water is what people would pay if they were dying of thirst. Obviously the measure you're using isn't practical.

No, compensation has increased in line with productivity. The two confusions people run into with this are: 1) they confuse hourly wage with compensation - over time salary has become a smaller and smaller part of compensation, as medical benefits and whatnot increased, 2) people confuse terms - as Senator Warren does when she used cross-sector increases in productivity and then compares that to increases in fast food wages - the obvious problem being that fast food productivity hasn't increased the same as average productivity.

Jobs aren't being subsidized by taxpayers - welfare payments are given to those unable to make significant earnings. If a worker is worth $15/hr but they're only getting paid $7.25/hr, there is competition - there is competition for labor, just as there is with consumer products. If you couldn't find an employer willing to pay you more than $7.25/hr, then you're not worth $15/hr, and if the state makes it against the law to pay you any less than $15/hr, then you will be collecting unemployment.

 

Let me ask. And I'll keep this short cause Ive already stayed up far longer than I should have.

What is the one common denominator with all those problems. Failing Education, debt, taxes,,,?

 

I don't disagree with the gist of what you're saying. The fact of the matter is that we are not going to let working people starve to death or die of exposure under a bridge, so we have welfare programs to make sure that doesn't happen. What I am suggesting is that wages replace welfare. Work replaces welfare. Not that they get more; that they have to work for it. That complacency you spoke of is going to disappear if they have to work for it. You can't get fired off of welfare, but you sure as heck can get fired off of a job.

 

In the context of the OP I believe you have to base American wages on what it cost to live in america not Mexico. The rest of your post is just noise.

 

You guys? I voted for Trump.

Poor people in this country are not allowed to die of exposure or starvation, and they can see a doctor. You and I pay for all that. Trump is not going to change that. We're going to keep paying for all that. What we are talking about here is making their work replace taking it out of your paycheck. I'm not suggesting that they get anything more. But if full time work can provide minimal subsistence, then you don't have to provide it for them with your work and pay.

 

I think that is very much in the eye of the beholder, so what do you think? Are the other issues I mentioned, layoffs or injury, not part of your point?

 

Government. Everywhere it involves itself ends up worse off.

 

This is such a vague and non-specific motto of conservatives, but I do agree with Thoreau when he says that "the best government governs least"
Few remember, however, that he caveats it with "when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. "
I do not think we are prepared yet.

But, since you advocate no/minimalist government, how would a purely private system be better? Are you an anarcho-capitalist variety of libertarian?

Education: What would happen to an entire class of people if education was not free, but for profit? We would surely have an entire class of people descending further into ignorance and violence. A functional society, let alone Democracy, is premised on widespread and accessible education.
Debt: What does government have to do with this? Government is required to stop usurious lending. Predatory lenders would bankrupt ignorant communities if they could.
Taxes: Ah, taxes. Let's not forget that the point of taxes, regardless of effectiveness, is to provide a group expenditure at a cheaper cost. Sure, maybe you want some things off the bill, but there are things you pay taxes for that you would also pay for privately. Roads, millitary, fire, police protection. Can you prove that you would be verifiably better off in a fully private system? Wouldn't you still pay privately for ways and means of keeping society and the economy stable for your own benefit?

 

Im a little short on time right now. But will loose your post in the mass of posts that will follow before Im free. So let me ask something real quick. How did schools manage before the massive government intrusion?

 

After briefly googling history of public education, I confirm what I already guessed: that schooling was available to the privileged few whose families could afford it.

Schools themselves were fine, but it is not the schools themselves we should care about! It is the students and the people who cannot afford schooling otherwise!

Not even girls were funded by tax dollars at first, let alone the American fight over letting black people into public schools.
Remember the time that government had to use the military to desegregate schools?
Further reading on the infamous Little Rock Nine reveals that the governor of Arkansas literally tried to shut down all public schools so he could fuse them with private schools which would allow him to continue segregation.
Given this insight into the power and irrationality of peoples, do you really think that private institutions could really be sufficient for all peoples on their own?
Is it not in a society's interest, your interest, to have a widely educated citizenry that privatization cannot guarantee, and often inhibits?
A lack of regulation and standardization in education would lead to a privatized race to the bottom, and those hurt by it would be those who cannot afford it most.

 

Being a realist you should know that developing nations cost of living is increasing, along with wages and benefits, government regulations and taxation, etc. Unfortunately the US is ahead of most other nations so our cost of living is on the high side. But this does not mean we cannot compete in certain arenas, or advance technology and innovation. In all nations, more so outside of the US, population continues to increase meaning greater burdens on government and all the trappings that comes with these issues. The US needs to be smart, and US companies must utilize resources around the world, but as the world creates more consumers there should be some hope for the USA...

 

Of course I'm not ignoring it...I just mentioned it.

Globalism is there for the taking...if the US is inept then so be it but I think we will manage okay. I'm more concerned about how we govern.

We will never know but how would our economy look if government had zero intervention? Some things better other things worse? In many cases government is like a mother-hen believing they need to be involved every step of the way...it's partly how they pander for taxation. I think government has a role but IMO it should be minimized. Selling treasuries is a bad thing because it means we continue to create debt...

 

I continue to say focusing on the few CEO's is not where anyone will find a single solution to anything.

These upper management people have a lot on their plate...managing international businesses, thousands/millions of employees, dealing with technology and innovation, fighting to be competitive, etc. and all public companies have shareholders demanding the impossible. IMO when we look solely at cash compensation of these CEO's they earn their pay. I've been lucky to be in a couple of top positions, albeit much smaller companies, one of them was public, and my work consumed my life during that time. The only thing that made it worth the effort was the rewards achieved in working with great people, solving problems, being creative and innovative, and knowing how well I did would reflect on the company and it's employees and vendors, etc. IMO CEO's and upper management are not a problem or solution for anything.

People have been homeless and in poverty since the beginning of commerce and this will never change. I think the best place to focus is as a nation do whatever we can do to give industry the best chance of succeeding...healthy industry equates to better economy and higher wages and more jobs and more taxation. If I was Trump the first thing I would do is abolish the corporate tax on the repatriation of cash held offshore and bring 100's of billion$ back into the USA...

 

First question: Labor does NOT have one "value". There is a price for labor, and that is set by competition for that labor - employers have to convince someone to work for them by offering competitive compensation. Employers can sell the work product of the labor they hire, and the price they get for that product (which is what I think you are referring to as "value") is set by the market for that product. If I hire someone to make something nobody wants, then what I paid for the labor was probably too much. On the other hand, if I hire someone to make something that people are willing to pay for, then I make a profit.

Whether the minimum wage is too high in order to make some particular product or service is specific to that product or service. Whether the employer can raise the price of that product or service has to do with the market for that product or service.

If a job doesn't pay a living wage, then the government subsidizes that job by giving support to that employee. Period. That isn't a question.

Corporations always face increases in the costs related to the production of a product or service. They compete with other corporations who face the same cost increases. We know how that works.

The problem here is that humans and iron ore are both parts of producing various products. However, the rules for the iron ore market can be different than those for the human market.

 

Our regulation all has a start date.

So, we DO know why those regulations were put in place. All you have to do is take a look at how things were working out before the regulation in question.

So for example, we have clean water regulation. We can look before that and find which rivers were unusable (even to the point of being a fire hazard), where the health risks were horrible, etc.

For another example, we can look at what was going on when we allowed monopolies..

We can look at what was going on before the FDA started regulating food quality.

Etc.

 

Privileged few?

 

That's not the point at all.

My point is that welfare is funded by the taxpayer, and replacing welfare with a "living wage" or minimum wage is funded by the consumer. Very little difference. Nothing is free.

 

Productivity of employees is usually just a matter of dividing some measure of the value of the product by some measure of the labor involved.

So, for example, productivity of grocery store workers has increased, because automated check-out stations were added - thus they don't have to hire as many workers. That certainly didn't cause anyone to get paid more.

Remember that Trump's proposed SecLabor is on record stating that he hates employees and wants them replaced by machines as fast as possible. Machines can be amortized and tossed in the garbage if they wear out. And, they increase productivity.

As US manufacturing moved through the recession there was an especially large push to shed employees. We saw significant increases in automation and efforts by corporations to get along without certain jobs being done anymore. That all added to "productivity". We also smashed unions - ending collective bargaining for compensation, worker safety, education/training (so workers can keep up with their industry), retirement, etc. That added to productivity, too!

When we now look at those manufacturing workers, folks like you can suggest they are worthless human beings.

But, for America's well being we can not let that employment situation be anything more than a problem definition - something that we can not afford to have happen.


Nobody is confused about what compensation means.

 

Surely there are advantages to people being able to support themselves and people being at least partially subsidized through a maze of government programs that attempt to identify the needs of those who aren't being paid enough to be independent.

 

Before Massachusetts first had tax-funded schools in the late 1700s, you had to be able to afford tuition for school or a private tutor. Not to mention the loss of a chunk of your child's productivity, since they could help otherwise spend time helping the family business. Are you questioning the idea of a time when only the well-off could afford education or the idea of "few"?

This assumes that companies operate with static, immovable margins.
Some have thin margins which can't budge, and some have fat margins with room to cut.
I assume you are not so rigid as to assume 100% of extra costs will be passed thru to the consumer.
And if that is the case, if we can make but a single penny of cost go from the taxpayer to the business-owner, is that not a penny-step in the right direction?

 

Yes. I believe a minimum wage should be established at $12+/hour, because the current wage isn't liveable, and, I hate to break it to the free-marketeers in the forum, but a basic right is to earn enough money to survive. You have a right to certain amount to allow you to get by.

But I do not think simply the enhancement of the minimum wage is enough. Sure, it'll make it easier for people to survive in the brutality of the market, but I think a UBI (universal basic income) at the value of the current minimum wage could also be essential. Not too high that it disincentivises working, and contributing to society, but not too low that you couldn't get by whilst unemployed. I think it should also be changed according to employment status, parenthood, neighbourhoods etc. It should be altered according to each individual's status

 

You're still confusing terms here. Price is arbitrary, market value is determined by market factors (like competition). If the market value for an original Atari is $300, and I offer to sell mine for $50, the price isn't $300 - the price is $50. The market value is $300.

It's not about whether the min wage is too high for a given service, but for a given laborer. Again, labor is a commodity that is traded, so let's think for a second - what if the state said, "it shall henceforth be a crime to sell a bottle of beer for any less than $15/bottle." Do you think a can of Coors is going to still sell? Of course not. Now apply the same idea to labor - if a worker's labor is worth $8/hr, and it becomes illegal to pay him less than $15, do you really think the worker is going to see a quality of living increase? No - they're going to lose their job. The business could close, the business could move to using machinery, it doesn't matter - the worker, for no reason but the meddling of bureaucrats who think they know better, is out of a job.

That isn't subsidizing a job, that is subsidizing a person. If that worker was not employed, would the business get his welfare benefits? no, the worker would still get his welfare benefits. The job isn't being subsidized, the individual's income is being supplemented. If you have a problem with that, that's government policy, not the policy of business.

The rules I'm referring to aren't secular laws, they're the laws of market forces. I'm sure you could want to legislate changes in the laws of nature, too - it'd be wonderful if we could just write a law and suddenly CO2 would stop being a greenhouse gas - but the laws I'm referring to can't be changed by a government body.