Should salaries be capped?

[vern_humphrey]

THen why get rid of it? It it only protects relatively few wage earners, fine; its still protecting someone. There are employers out there who would pay slave wages if they could, though hopefully not many.

Because:

1. It prices the least employable out of the market. Walter Williams (an economist at James Mason University) points out that in the 1940s the minimum wage was so low no one was paid that little, Black teenagers had the same employment level as White teenagers. Now they have only about a third that level of employment.
2. It eliminates some jobs – such as gas station attendent. These are the very jobs the poorest people depend on.
3. It drives other jobs (such as shirt manufacturing) overseas.
4. It puts upward pressure on other wages – when the minimum wage earners get a raise, the workers just above minimum wage want one too, and so on. Which tends to spark inflation – leaving everyone back where they started.
5. It drives many jobs to the labor Black Market.

 

[consumedconvert]

Because:

1. It prices the least employable out of the market. ** Walter Williams (an economist at James Mason University) points out that in the 1940s the minimum wage was so low no one was paid that little,** Black teenagers had the same employment level as White teenagers. Now they have only about a third that level of employment.
2. It eliminates some jobs – such as gas station attendent. These are the very jobs the poorest people depend on.
3. It drives other jobs (such as shirt manufacturing) overseas.
4. It puts upward pressure on other wages – when the minimum wage earners get a raise, the workers just above minimum wage want one too, and so on. Which tends to spark inflation – leaving everyone back where they started.
5. It drives many jobs to the labor Black Market.

Part of your point earlier was that no one hardly pays that much now, so I see number one as a contradiction.

I would point out the low unemployement rate in the US, and suggest that most of those currently on the unemployment rolls would not take a minimum wage job if offered, because it would not support their families–contra your assertion that minimum wage keeps many people unemployed.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Part of your point earlier was that no one hardly pays that much now, so I see number one as a contradiction.

No, I said no one paid that in the 1940s.

I would point out the low unemployement rate in the US,

The unemployment data only counts people looking for work, not people who have given up.

and suggest that most of those currently on the unemployment rolls would not take a minimum wage job if offered, because it would not support their families–contra your assertion that minimum wage keeps many people unemployed.

So they’re better off working for ZERO dollars?

The mythical “hard-working man on miminum wage with an invalid wife and 13 crippled children” doesn’t really exist. Most minimum wage earners are supplementary wage earners.

 

[BamaRider]

I would point out the low unemployement rate in the US, and suggest that most of those currently on the unemployment rolls would not take a minimum wage job if offered, because it would not support their families–contra your assertion that minimum wage keeps many people unemployed

Do what?? A guy with NO job turns a down job because he says he can’t take care of his family on that wage, so he’d rather have NO job?? What am I missing?? This is a guy with NO job LOL, telling us he can’t take that job because it doesn’t pay enough???

The thing is; cons is right! A lotta guys will sit at the house with NO job, before flipping burgers.

 

[BamaRider]

So you would be against any government policy that artifically props up anyone’s salary? For example, would you agree that mortgage interest deduction should be eliminated because it increases the demand for new housing and therefore increases the demand for workers and increases their salary? What about the price of sugar, should that be determined by the market? Or should we have trade restrictions on sugar that prop up the income of the few? If we really want the market to determine the wage rate, then we should get rid of all government programs that affect wages, not just the one with the smallest impact.

To answer your question, ( I try to do what when asked) I view all govt interference in free markets as bad. and counter productive.

Take the luxury tax of the 70s. Carter passed a that tax on stuff like yachts, well guess what, it almost put that industry outta business.

I still can’t anybody to answer the following questions-

I’m gonna assume you think minimum wage is a good thing, and protects workers from being exploited by evil corporations. OK, I’m with ya. Where is the cut off point? If 8 is good, then surely 10 is better, but no need to deprive the masses, lets just make it 20! Then all libs can feel warm and fuzzy!

What do YOU wanna pay the cart guy at Wal Mart? The burger flipper at Mcdonalds? Tell us what YOU think those jobs are worth? I say let the market determine who gets paid what.

 

[consumedconvert]

Do what?? A guy with NO job turns a down job because he says he can’t take care of his family on that wage, so he’d rather have NO job?? What am I missing?? This is a guy with NO job LOL, telling us he can’t take that job because it doesn’t pay enough???

The thing is; cons is right! A lotta guys will sit at the house with NO job, before flipping burgers.

The point is, sir, that accepting a minimum wage job is often the same as giving up on a higher paying job.

Let’s see, your a manager. You see someone previously had a job as an insurance salesman, then twp months after being laid off he took a job working at McDonalds for four months, as a burger flipper. Would you hire him?

I would consider it; but many would not. Many would say, “wow, this guy is lacking so much confidence that he went from a thirty thousand dollar a year job to work at the same wage as a high schooler, instead of looking for a grown-up job. He’s not a strong candidate.”

Nothing against the Golden Arches; but I think your post ignores the fact that many are quite against the idea of committing resume suicide.

BTW, I am aware that in many places McDonalds does pay above minimum, even though they don’t have to. (Great for them!) I’m merely pointing out an economic reality. The only thing you would accomplish by killing the minimum wage is letting loose the guy at the bottom, our most vulnerable neighbors.

 

[consumedconvert]

OK, I was letting that pass since I don’t think anyone could convince you anyway. But I’ll take a stab at it.

I’m gonna assume you think minimum wage is a good thing, and protects workers from being exploited by evil corporations. OK, I’m with ya. Where is the cut off point? If 8 is good, then surely 10 is better, but no need to deprive the masses, lets just make it 20! Then **all libs **can feel warm and fuzzy!

What do YOU wanna pay the cart guy at Wal Mart? The burger flipper at Mcdonalds? Tell us what YOU think those jobs are worth? I say let the market determine who gets paid what.

What is it with conservatives labelling anyone they don’t agree with a liberal?

Just for the record, I’m an independent but usually vote Republican.

Yes, sure, let the market decide wages–above a certain level, and to an extent. You already know what I think of “free trade” with nations such as China, who manipulate their currency to beat out true US manufacturers, and what they do to wages and jobs in the US; so I’ll not review.

As to how much the minimum wage should be, how much is the cost of living? That should give us some idea.

 

[BamaRider]

The point is, sir, that accepting a minimum wage job is often the same as giving up on a higher paying job.

Let’s see, your a manager. You see someone previously had a job as an insurance salesman, then twp months after being laid off he took a job working at McDonalds for four months, as a burger flipper. Would you hire him?

I can see where ya coming from on this, but I feel most HR guys, would not think this way. In fact I’d view it as a positive thing. “I flipped burgers in the day, and delivered pizzas at night, because I had to support my family, while I waited on somebody to give me a chance.” I’m thinking I hire HIM, before I hire a guy who has a 18 month void in his work history. “So watcha been doin the last 18 months sir?” “Not much, just watching TV, and waiting on the right job.” Is this line of reasoning flawed?

If I had to flip burgers, and deliver pizza, I’d tell interviewer the truth as to why. And if he held it against me, then so be it

Yes, sure, let the market decide wages–above a certain level, and to an extent. You already know what I think of “free trade” with nations such as China, who manipulate their currency to beat out true US manufacturers, and what they do to wages and jobs in the US; so I’ll not

I’m for free trade, but realize in today’s world not gonna get it. So I think I agree with most of this statement.

Tie in MW with cost of living? How do we do that? My COL may not be what the guy down the street is. (ESPN in my house is top of the list) If the purpose of MW is make sure everyone can pay for the basics, then heck, why stop there, lets make it where everyone can have flat screen and DVR.

Kinda like when Dems wanna extend employment benefits. All that does is give less incentive to go out and take that burger flipping job. If the Dems had theie way, uemployment would NEVER run out.

 

[consumedconvert]

I can see where ya coming from on this, but I feel most HR guys, would not think this way. In fact I’d view it as a positive thing. “I flipped burgers in the day, and delivered pizzas at night, because I had to support my family, while I waited on somebody to give me a chance.” I’m thinking I hire HIM, before I hire a guy who has a 18 month void in his work history. “So watcha been doin the last 18 months sir?” “Not much, just watching TV, and waiting on the right job.” Is this line of reasoning flawed?

If I had to flip burgers, and deliver pizza, I’d tell interviewer the truth as to why. And if he held it against me, then so be it

I’m for free trade, but realize in today’s world not gonna get it. So I think I agree with most of this statement.

Tie in MW with cost of living? How do we do that? My COL may not be what the guy down the street is. (ESPN in my house is top of the list) If the purpose of MW is make sure everyone can pay for the basics, then heck, why stop there, lets make it where everyone can have flat screen and DVR.

Kinda like when Dems wanna extend employment benefits. All that does is give less incentive to go out and take that burger flipping job. If the Dems had theie way, uemployment would NEVER run out.

I agree with you on the guy flipping burgers; but unfortunately not all HR departments are as fair and thoughtful as you and I. Many are, unfortunately, mini-beuracracies which mirror that government inefficiency and rediculous red tape that we dislike so much.

 

[repo_man]

Not gonna work in practice (what species are you talking about here? Homo sapiens?), greed motivates people to innovate.

just getting rid of abortion isn’t exactly practical either, i thought part of being catholic though was being a bit of an idealist dreamer that fought for what was morally right regardless of how well it will go over with society. i mean i guess if you guys want to sell out though be my guest …

i’m for the maximum wage. well … it may be a better idea to just have all income over $1 million to be taxed at a rate of 60% or something. that way there’s still incentive to work, cause you won’t always be cut off at $1 million, you’ll just have a majority shaved off.

 

[consumedconvert]

just getting rid of abortion isn’t exactly practical either, i thought part of being catholic though was being a bit of an idealist dreamer.

Disagree with you there. LEt’s end it this next term.

 

[repo_man]

Disagree with you there. LEt’s end it this next term.

hey, i’m all for ending it. i’ll be at the pro-life march in DC next weekend. see you there i guess.

 

[mapleoak]

We can take care of the issue of salary caps and minimum wage by just mandating that everyone makes the same amount of money. That way no one would make more money than anyone else. How does $15.00 per hour sound? Or maybe $20.00? Lets make it fair for everyone.

 

[consumedconvert]

We can take care of the issue of salary caps and minimum wage by just mandating that everyone makes the same amount of money. That way no one would make more money than anyone else. How does $15.00 per hour sound? Or maybe $20.00? Lets make it fair for everyone.

That would be communism.

Lest anyone say “you’re arguing for communism!”, I wish to point out that my position is nuanced; I do not ask that all people make the same wage, I strongly believe in responsible private ownership. This position is nuanced and is not communism, even if you disagree with it.

Sometimes I think the number one thing wrong with political debate in America is that everyone speaks in hyperboles.

 

[mapleoak]

That would be communism.

Yes, and how many times does it need to be tried to prove it doesn’t work? Common sense tells one that it doesn’t work in principle. History tells one that it doesn’t work from experience.

Lest anyone say “you’re arguing for communism!”, I wish to point out that my position is nuanced; I do not ask that all people make the same wage, I strongly believe in responsible private ownership. This position is nuanced and is not communism, even if you disagree with it.

Both the minimum wage and the salary cap are socialistic and communistic ideologies.

 

[consumedconvert]

Yes, and how many times does it need to be tried to prove it doesn’t work? Common sense tells one that it doesn’t work in principle. History tells one that it doesn’t work from experience.

Agree.

Both the minimum wage and the salary cap are socialistic and communistic ideologies.

Actually, they may be described as distributist-leaning ideologies.

dis-trib-u-tism, n. An attempt by Catholics, particularly GK Chesterton and Hillaire Belloc, to apply Catholic social doctrine, particularly that found in the encyclicals of Leo XIII, to economic policy. (Recommend researching it.)

nuanced, adj. Requiring careful thought and examination to comprehend; unable to be stereotyped. Example: As opposed to the “once saved always saved” or “works salvation” approach to Christianity, the Catholic position on salvation is nuanced.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

That would be communism.

Lest anyone say “you’re arguing for communism!”, I wish to point out that my position is nuanced; I do not ask that all people make the same wage, I strongly believe in responsible private ownership. This position is nuanced and is not communism, even if you disagree with it.

Sometimes I think the number one thing wrong with political debate in America is that everyone speaks in hyperboles.

It’s not communism (state ownership of the means of production). It’s over regulation. The problem is people confuse regulation for communism or socialism when they’re totally different things altogether.

 

[mapleoak]

Actually, they may be described as distributist-leaning ideologies.

dis-trib-u-tism, n. An attempt by Catholics, particularly GK Chesterton and Hillaire Belloc, to apply Catholic social doctrine, particularly that found in the encyclicals of Leo XIII, to economic policy. (Recommend researching it.)

nuanced, adj. Requiring careful thought and examination to comprehend; unable to be stereotyped. Example: As opposed to the “once saved always saved” or “works salvation” approach to Christianity, the Catholic position on salvation is nuanced.

It’s not communism (state ownership of the means of production). It’s over regulation. The problem is people confuse regulation for communism or socialism when they’re totally different things altogether.

The philosophy is that when government decides how much money one can make (limit or ensure) there is not much difference between that and any other form of equalizing involved with socialism. I recommend reading “Animal Farm” by George Orwell.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The philosophy is that when government decides how much money one can make (limit or ensure) there is not much difference between that and any other form of equalizing involved with socialism. I recommend reading “Animal Farm” by George Orwell.

You know the old saying about, “If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck . . .”

 

[consumedconvert]

The philosophy is that when government decides how much money one can make (limit or ensure) there is not much difference between that and any other form of equalizing involved with socialism. I recommend reading “Animal Farm” by George Orwell.

Fascinating book!

Note the very end. Pigs (communists) morph into men (mega-capitalists) and men morph into pigs, back and forth, as they party together. Orwell trusted no one with a lot of power. The point of that scene was,. I believe, that corrupt communists bosses and corrupt mega-capitalist bosses are the same—in it only for themselves.

On one of the rare occasions when Saddam Hussein allowed himself to be interviewed by the Western press, he showed the reporter his library, which was filled with biographies of Josef Stalin. Surprised, the reporter asked, “Are you a communist?”

Hussein said something to the effect of, “Do you really think Stalin was a communist?”

Sometimes I think we make a mistake in thinking that at the topmost levels hardball politics is primarily about competing ideologies; esp. since most politicians will change ideologies. Could it be that most top-level politics, communist, capitalist, republican, democrat, socialist, other, is about self-preservation?