Minimum wage

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Perhaps, after many years of saving, they retired.

Maybe they decided to stay home and raise their children while their spouse supported the family.

Maybe they died.

Maybe they received an inheritance and decided to live off of that.

Perhaps they took a loan out and returned to school full-time.

Maybe they started their own business and are doing it out of their home and haven’t yet filed on their income taxes.

Perhaps they decided not to go on unemployment while they searched for a job (teachers usually do not go on unemployment during the summer, but are not considered employed).

There are lots of reasons why a person might not be “working” and still not taking your earnings.

All good and valid points Sally.

I wonder what percentage of the 92 million Americans who can work but don’t…fall into your categories.

I would venture to guess that the vast majority of the non working Americans are enjoying a better income and benefits while on welfare rather than what they could be earning at a job.

 

[Erich]

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, there were 1,601,368 bachelor’s degrees conferred to U.S. citizens and nonresident aliens in 2008-2009; 1,650,014 in 2009-2010; and 1,715,913 in 2010-2011. There are no numbers for subsequent years, but based on the trend since 2001, it’s probably safe to say that there were at least 1,755,000 in 2011-2012; at least 1,795,000 in 2012-2013; and at least 1,835,000 in 2013-2014.

So, at least 10,352,000 college grads entering the workforce in the last 6 years (or, trying to). Granted, not everyone who graduates with a bachelor’s immediately enter the work force; some go on to get advanced degrees. That said, not everyone goes to college, either; some enter the work force immediately after high school. Assuming that those two sets of numbers roughly cancel each other out (I have no idea whether that’s true or not), that leaves us with at least 10,352,000 people entering the work force at the same time that 11,246,000 are leaving it. Yeah, that got your attention, didn’t it?

Another way of looking at this is, six years ago, the economy had jobs for 11,246,000 people who today do not have them. You could say that the number of jobs available has also decreased by a number that approximates that. It wouldn’t be exact. I mean, it never would be, but it’s close. There are no jobs being created. You can’t have a growing economy with this many people not working. You cannot have a recovery. You cannot have an expansion. You cannot have rising incomes, wages. You cannot have increased economic output. You can’t have an economic recovery in an economy where 11.2+ million people have lost their jobs because those jobs are gone. You just can’t. The mathematics alone makes it impossible.

 

[Rau]

Fundamental unviability? And yet, a google search on [cash flow of typical pizza parlor] turns up this link to someone’s business plan:

Not only are the staffing needs the same as for my hypothetical pizza parlor, but the first year revenues and earnings are lower … and the plan anticipates “that within 10 years, there will be 10 Olympic Pizzeria locations in operation. At this time, company valuation is expected to be around $5 million, which will allow an adequate-sized venture to become interested in acquiring the company.”

Not living anywhere near Seaside, OR I have no idea whether this place ever opened (under this name or another one), or if so whether it was in fact acquired by someone else, but $5M in 10 years doesn’t exactly sound “fundamentally unviable”

What are the staff cost from the 10 PART TIME staff? The prior model was 10 full time staff, which is what made the business unviable.

 

[maryjk]

If you win the lottery and are able to quit your job…good for you.

But I actually care very much about those who leave or lose a job and do not seek employment…because, now the government is taking MY earnings and paying them NOT to work.

Gee, what a great way to think of your fellow man. Or woman.

I for one left the work force. But don’t worry, I haven’t taken one damn penny from you.

I decided to stay home and take care of my child. My husband, my child’s father, supports us.

 

[Rau]

Actually your Aussie McDonald’s workers are NOT earning $17.39 per hour…are they? More like $6.21 to $9.75 if they are under 18. Possibly less if they are classified as a trainee.

The McDonald’s are very profitable in Australia because 90% of their employees are paid at a lower wage than the minimum of $17.32 per hour.

Australia does it right. They have five levels of Special National Minimum Wages ranging from $6.21 to $16.00 Aus. All depending on age, training (Skill level) and years of schooling.

In other words, Australians are paid what they are worth.

Actually, Australians are obliged to pay Americans and others the same rates too!

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Gee, what a great way to think of your fellow man. Or woman.

I for one left the work force. But don’t worry, I haven’t taken one damn penny from you.

I decided to stay home and take care of my child. My husband, my child’s father, supports us.

Good for you

That’s the way it should be…Thank you

 

[Rau]

Good for you

That’s the way it should be…Thank you

Charity begins at home! No home? Not our problem - you can starve!

 

[styrgwillidar]

Charity begins at home! No home? Not our problem - you can starve!

Charity is a choice, a decision to give to others. It is not something forced from someone. It is not coveting what another has gained by their own effort and making them give it to someone else.

Christ did not tell the rich young man to grab others property and sell it, He told Him to sell His own belongings.

Which gets back to minimum wage and morality-- if a person is running a business he has a moral obligation to pay folks commensurate with what they’re worth. He has a moral right to make a profit based on his labors, and the amount of risk, effort and sacrifice he made in the years leading up to his current status. It is immoral to tell him to pay folks more than what the effort they provide is worth.

A worker certainly has a moral right to decide they can’t afford to work for a certain level of wages and benefits. Remember, the hourly wage isn’t the only direct cost of labor to a business. It’s also the cost of the benefits involved, some of which are linked to the wages as a percentage. A full time employee typically costs a business twice the hourly wage. I.E. $15 hr to the worker is actually ~$30 hr if there are decent benefits.

Problem being people take the term ‘worth’ and insinuate its a comment on the value of the human being or his role/responsibility. Teacher vs professional athlete for example. When it really is about worth in terms of being able to sustain/grow a business. A business has to be able to cover the cost of wages/materials/other overhead/profit margin, which means each employee has to generate gross revenue. A business can’t survive artificially inflatinng wages ignoring that fact. It’s math. A salesman who doesn’t sell any product-- no matter how hard he’s working-- is being paid too much, again it’s just math. Might not be his fault at all if the business owner has priced his product unreasonably over what the market will bear.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Charity begins at home! No home? Not our problem - you can starve!

Who’s home? The giver or the taker?

 

[Rau]

Who’s home? The giver or the taker?

The Christian one ?

 

[Rau]

Which gets back to minimum wage and morality-- if a person is running a business he has a moral obligation to pay folks commensurate with what they’re worth. He has a moral right to make a profit based on his labors, and the amount of risk, effort and sacrifice he made in the years leading up to his current status. It is immoral to tell him to pay folks more than what the effort they provide is worth.

And if a 13 year old with his parents consent wants to leave school and work in the coal mine in unsafe conditions, how immoral for anyone to prevent that!

We are talking about economic and social systems. Unencumbered freedoms might sound moral to you, but common sense might suggest that the less powerful and the less privileged need some safeguards from those that would exploit.

No one is forced to pay a particular salary. If the job is not viable within the parameters set (age, safety, min pay rates… ) then we don’t have such jobs. This is the system and the reduction of personal freedoms serves other goods we regard more highly.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

And if a 13 year old with his parents consent wants to leave school and work in the coal mine in unsafe conditions, how immoral for anyone to prevent that!

We are talking about economic and social systems. Unencumbered freedoms might sound moral to you, but common sense might suggest that the less powerful and the less privileged need some safeguards from those that would exploit.

No one is forced to pay a particular salary. If the job is not viable within the parameters set (age, safety, min pay rates… ) then we don’t have such jobs. This is the system and the reduction of personal freedoms serves other goods we regard more highly.

No 13 year old today would want to work in a coal mine.

However there was a time when a 13 years old would gladly work in a coal mine with or without parental consent. In those days the alternative was crime or starvation.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Charity is a choice, a decision to give to others. It is not something forced from someone. It is not coveting what another has gained by their own effort and making them give it to someone else.Actually we are abliged to be charitable.
Christ did not tell the rich young man to grab others property and sell it, He told Him to sell His own belongings. It’s disrespectful to cherry pick the teachings of Christ to make some obscure point.

Which gets back to minimum wage and morality-- if a person is running a business he has a moral obligation to pay folks commensurate with what they’re worth. He has a moral right to make a profit based on his labors, and the amount of risk, effort and sacrifice he made in the years leading up to his current status. It is immoral to tell him to pay folks more than what the effort they provide is worth.I think many have hidden behind this twisted logic for too long. There is no true moral basis for your argument. Rather both morality, and reality argue against you. American workers have fallen so far behind that shocking adjustments are in order. Once we raise wages for all workers then we can watch as they buy homes, raise families, and enjoy a peaceful retirement. Too wish anything less on your fellows is when you find yourself on the slippery slope of immorality. People are living longer today. Which is a victory of science. But at the same time we are seeing a rise in Dementia, and of course Alzheimer’s disease. These poor souls are going to need expensive care towards the end of their lives on earth. With todays low wages, they are unable to save for this great expense. Which means the meager existence of a Medicaid bed in some nursing home. I wouldn’t wish that on anyone.

A worker certainly has a moral right to decide they can’t afford to work for a certain level of wages and benefits. Remember, the hourly wage isn’t the only direct cost of labor to a business. It’s also the cost of the benefits involved, some of which are linked to the wages as a percentage. A full time employee typically costs a business twice the hourly wage. I.E. $15 hr to the worker is actually ~$30 hr if there are decent benefits. If only there were decent benefits you mean. This is not the 90’s my friend.

Problem being people take the term ‘worth’ and insinuate its a comment on the value of the human being or his role/responsibility. Teacher vs professional athlete for example. When it really is about worth in terms of being able to sustain/grow a business. A business has to be able to cover the cost of wages/materials/other overhead/profit margin, which means each employee has to generate gross revenue. A business can’t survive artificially inflatinng wages ignoring that fact. It’s math. A salesman who doesn’t sell any product-- no matter how hard he’s working-- is being paid too much, again it’s just math. Might not be his fault at all if the business owner has priced his product unreasonably over what the market will bear.This is exactly why we have minimum wage standards. to keep all businesses on an even playing field. If a business cannot compete, and fails. It is not because the wages he paid were too high. Every other business in his category has to pay the same. It’s because he’s a failure at business.

 

[Rau]

No 13 year old today would want to work in a coal mine.

However there was a time when a 13 years old would gladly work in a coal mine with or without parental consent. In those days the alternative was crime or starvation.

This is obtuse thinking, or naive.

Translate the idea to the 21st century. We are not a more moral people today - unfettered capitalism will produce abuses in this century too.

Do we need any labour laws at all? Any safety regulations at all. Any consumer protections at all? Any freedom of information laws at all? Any competition laws at all? We choose not to live by the law of the jungle, reliant in individual morality.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

This is obtuse thinking, or naive.

Translate the idea to the 21st century. We are not a more moral people today - unfettered capitalism will produce abuses in this century too.

Do we need any labour laws at all? Any safety regulations at all. Any consumer protections at all? Any freedom of information laws at all? Any competition laws at all? We choose not to live by the law of the jungle, reliant in individual morality.

Rau, you are the last person I want to engage in a deep seated argument.

Please just consider this…

The nineteenth century was the ultimate product and expression of the intellectual trend of the Renaissance and the Age of Reason, which means: of a predominantly Aristotelian philosophy. And, for the first time in history, it created a new economic system, the necessary corollary of political freedom, a system of free trade on a free market: Capitalism.

No, it was not a full, perfect, unregulated, totally laissez-faire Capitalism (as it should have been). Various degrees of government interference and control existed, even in America. But the extent to which certain countries were free was the exact extent of their economic progress. America, the freest, achieved the most.

Yes, of course, there were low wages and harsh living conditions in the early years of Capitalism. They were all that the national economies of the time could afford. Capitalism did not create poverty…it inherited it. Compared to the centuries of pre-capitalist starvation, the living conditions of the poor in the early years of capitalism were the first chance the poor had to survive.

The entire world enjoyed almost a century of peace and a higher standard of living during the time Capitalism/Free Market had the least restrictions and controls.

I would really like your thoughts on the above.

 

[Rau]

Rau, you are the last person I want to engage in a deep seated argument.

Please just consider this…

The nineteenth century was the ultimate product and expression of the intellectual trend of the Renaissance and the Age of Reason, which means: of a predominantly Aristotelian philosophy. And, for the first time in history, it created a new economic system, the necessary corollary of political freedom, a system of free trade on a free market: Capitalism.

No, it was not a full, perfect, unregulated, totally laissez-faire Capitalism (as it should have been). Various degrees of government interference and control existed, even in America. But the extent to which certain countries were free was the exact extent of their economic progress. America, the freest, achieved the most.

Yes, of course, there were low wages and harsh living conditions in the early years of Capitalism. They were all that the national economies of the time could afford. Capitalism did not create poverty…it inherited it. Compared to the centuries of pre-capitalist starvation, the living conditions of the poor in the early years of capitalism were the first chance the poor had to survive.

The entire world enjoyed almost a century of peace and a higher standard of living during the time Capitalism/Free Market had the least restrictions and controls.

I would really like your thoughts on the above.

Please examine the distribution of wealth in the USA and to whom the benefits of capitalism have accrued the most. Capitalism is the best system we have, but left unchecked, it too produces unacceptable outcomes.

 

[JimG]

Every economic system that I am aware of produces unacceptable outcomes. Communism produced a lot of deaths. It also enriched the top 1%. Feudalism produced class distinctions, and enriched the monarchy over the peasants, but it seems that everyone had a place. There are a lot of possible economic systems, but there will always be inequalities among people’s wealth.

 

[Rau]

Every economic system that I am aware of produces unacceptable outcomes. Communism produced a lot of deaths. It also enriched the top 1%. Feudalism produced class distinctions, and enriched the monarchy over the peasants, but it seems that everyone had a place. There are a lot of possible economic systems, but there will always be inequalities among people’s wealth.

Yes of course, and the system relies on unequal distributions of wealth (incentive) to function. What is to be understood is that unchecked economic systems, of any kind, deliver outcomes in accordance with the difference in power between the actors in the system. We are not at the point where the morality of the actors sufficiently moderates the consequences of the power imbalance to deliver morally acceptable social outcomes.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Please examine the distribution of wealth in the USA and to whom the benefits of capitalism have accrued the most. Capitalism is the best system we have, but left unchecked, it too produces unacceptable outcomes.

The distribution of wealth is a natural phenomena of Capitalism. Some people get rich, some people get richer and some people earn what they work for. The point is that there is an equal freedom of opportunity. While one man gets richer than another they both have the same opportunities.

“Unacceptable outcomes of Capitalism” is a myth since the first government regulation turned the Free Market into a government regulated economy. These “unacceptable outcomes” are promoted by those who expect the state to take from the producers and give to the unproductive in the name of equality.

 

[styrgwillidar]

The distribution of wealth is a natural phenomena of Capitalism. Some people get rich, some people get richer and some people earn what they work for. The point is that there is an equal freedom of opportunity. While one man gets richer than another they both have the same opportunities.

“Unacceptable outcomes of Capitalism” is a myth since the first government regulation turned the Free Market into a government regulated economy. These “unacceptable outcomes” are promoted by those who expect the state to take from the producers and give to the unproductive in the name of equality.

These regulations are also a product of ‘crony capitalism’ where the political class/lobbyists (who are one and the same, revolving door between political job and than a job in the undustry) pass laws to favor and protect businesses they prefer. Pick the winners and losers-- I think this is the largest distortion from true capitalism. The whole ‘too big to fail’ or we have to protect GM for the unions while bankrupting the investors.