G
Geist
Guest
And yet many sincerely believe we need more government intervention, power, and programs.
Why do you suppose that is?
- Status
Why do you suppose that is?
N
NoRockwell
Guest
I saw quite a bit of protestors in DC, where I live.
All of the city councilmen in the district voted unanimously for the minimum wage increase to $15.
I can understand the instinct to want this, and I don’t blame people for wanting a better means of living, but there are a lot of problems with increasing the minimum wage.
In short, it’s only addressing a symptom of the problem and it neglects the problem itself. In fact, it will prolong and worsen the problem of high unemployment. Artificially increasing the value of any given job only decreases the value of employees and will ultimately leave inexperienced workers and young people jobless.
It will also force businesses to cut hours and even cut jobs as they won’t be able to afford to keep everyone on $15 per hour.
There is a way to address these problems, but artificially changing a positions worth is not the way to go.
All of the city councilmen in the district voted unanimously for the minimum wage increase to $15.
I can understand the instinct to want this, and I don’t blame people for wanting a better means of living, but there are a lot of problems with increasing the minimum wage.
In short, it’s only addressing a symptom of the problem and it neglects the problem itself. In fact, it will prolong and worsen the problem of high unemployment. Artificially increasing the value of any given job only decreases the value of employees and will ultimately leave inexperienced workers and young people jobless.
It will also force businesses to cut hours and even cut jobs as they won’t be able to afford to keep everyone on $15 per hour.
There is a way to address these problems, but artificially changing a positions worth is not the way to go.
L
Lochias
Guest
Well, people need something. You’ve got the Repubs telling people “Do it yourself!” and the Dems telling people “make the government do it!”
I notice that neither crowd is particularly interested in actually, you know, helping the poor themselves.
N
NoRockwell
Guest
In the defense of both parties (of which I belong to neither and tend to oppose very strongly), my observation is that Liberals want to see the poorly off remembered and taken care of by the State. Conservatives believe that the State would enable them and that they have a better chance of a real shot if businesses can decide what works best for them.
This is of course a generalization of both parties.
C
Cricket2
Guest
I can’t agree. This country spent at least 27 years prior to Obama’s election removing the value from peoples work by keeping wages stagnant or lowering them through the effects of mergers and outsourcing of jobs. The only reason for the outsourcing was cheap labor. There is nothing uplifting about putting in an honest days work and still being unable to afford the basics of life.
What we have been doing is artificially decreasing the value of many jobs, letting people know that they are expendable and replaceable, decreasing benefits and cutting jobs to keep profits high for the benefit of a few. About the only artificial increase in job value has occurred on the top.
I can remember when our grocery store had one manager for the mornings and one for the evenings. There were cashiers and baggers for every lane, and the store was full of shoppers. Now all you can find is 4, or maybe 5 checkers and one person bagging. And when the lines get too long there are 5 -6 managers running around trying to dig up another checker. What we need to do is start the cuts on top, beginning with the top heavy administrative positions, and start putting the regular folks back to work.
Or, the local elementary school I attended: We had one Principal and if he was out his secretary acted as the Vice-Principal. Now they have a half dozen assistants, and the Principal, and a couple of secretaries. Now the school is no bigger than it was, there have been no added classrooms, or increases in class size. So why all the “Generals.”
When my grandfather retired from his position with the Public Schools they hired 6 people to do his job. Really? No need if they could have found one that actually knew what they were doing.
We need to start all cuts with the top and work down, instead of what is done now. I bet there would be a lot more effort to salvage peoples jobs, and create work, or even acknowledge that more workers are needed if the folks on top figured they might be cut to balance that bottom line.
Besides, when “All that matters is the bottom line.” (Reagan said that.), then people stop mattering, their retirements stop mattering, their work ethic stops mattering and you land up were we are now in this country.
C
Crossbones
Guest
I paid my way through college and graduate school through odd jobs and later poorly paid university teaching jobs (grad TA). The thing though was, even though my pay was low, I was never really desperately poor. To that end, I have to acknowledge that
a) my family helped support me in subtle ways (for example, they made sure I had a good car to drive by selling me their old cars at family discount rates with the extra benefit of the fact that I knew they were well-taken care of)
b) even though I never asked for a dime, I knew if I ever got in trouble (illness, kicked out of school, whatever), they could help me financially if I needed it.
c) it was just me. I didn’t have a wife/kids to take care of, my parents and grandparents were financially sound, so I could focus on completing my education.
Sure, I worked hard to do what I did, I didn’t really have squat for a while (including one winter that I couldn’t afford to really heat my apartment), but I don’t equate what I did with what some workers or families face because I knew I had a financially sound support system that could/did help me. Many of the people that hold these types of jobs aren’t well positioned to do things to improve their lot (either they have to work so hard that they don’t have time or they have work and family obligations so they don’t have time) and I think we have to be careful (all of us, not you in particular, estesbob - I don’t know your story at all) to think that what we did can be equated to people trying to rise out of poverty.
T
TheWarriorMonk
Guest
Interesting…you complain that it is unChristian not to raise the minimum wage to a living wage here, and also complain that jobs are being outsourced. Well, one of the reasons they are being outsourced is because raising wages makes it unaffordable for a business to remain profitable here. Also, one job lost here to high wages can mean 5-6 employed people over in China. Now, is you point that only people in the U.S. should have jobs, and not others? Would you rather see one person employed in a wealthy country, or several in a poorer country? Is it unChristian to outsource jobs to poorer countries because Christians only care about what happens in their own backyard?
Interestingly enough, when I was in China, I noticed that there are several people doing one job there that would take one person to do here. For instance, you may go to a restaurant and have 3 greeters at the door, rather than 1. Same with waitresses; you’ll likely have several serving you. Granted, they don’t paid much, but it keeps everyone employed. Double the wages and half the people are out of work (something they won’t do…they learned their lesson about what happens when young people are unemployed).
F
fin
Guest
This is true. Increase wages, and everything goes up. Businesses pass the increased costs onto consumers. If they don’t, profits won’t be as much, or there would even be losses, and they would have to close down. If they close down, the employees lose their jobs. No company, no employees. It’s a lose lose situation.
There are smart and not so smart people across the economic spectrum. It just so happens that these helpers did not have the luxury of finishing high school or college, so they work as such. They could be very smart, but if they don’t have the financial resources to do so, it’s hard.
Yes, they could be ‘untrained, untalented, and mostly not too bright’. But it could also be ‘poor, uneducated, and lacking in resources’. But then he was being sarcastic.
In our country, employing maids/household helpers are the norm rather than the exception. When employers get exasperated with what their helper did or did not do, the common comment is, “Well she wouldn’t be working in that if she has the IQ of Einstein.”
There are smart and not so smart people across the economic spectrum. It just so happens that these helpers did not have the luxury of finishing high school or college, so they work as such. They could be very smart, but if they don’t have the financial resources to do so, it’s hard.
Yes, they could be ‘untrained, untalented, and mostly not too bright’. But it could also be ‘poor, uneducated, and lacking in resources’. But then he was being sarcastic.
F
fin
Guest
I don’t agree with telling an employer to pay you more or you won’t show up to work. Yes, you could ask for a raise, but it the employers declines, sorry. You are free to resign; no one is forcing you to staying in that job. Not showing up because you’re unhappy with your salary seems to be a way of threatening the employer and acting like you’re indispensable. Resign properly and not just go AWOL and disappear without a trace if you’re not contented. Strikes are a bad idea IMHO. Those recent airline strikes in Europe affected everybody, especially travelers. If one is a flight attendant and didn’t like the current wages, why trouble everybody at the airport plus travelers with complaints? That seems very uncharitable.
T
Thomas_Peter
Guest
Having the highest corporate tax rate in the world doesn’t help
N
NoRockwell
Guest
I agree that this is not something that began under the Obama administration. All of his recent predecessors, from LBJ up especially, have practically promoted the same economic policies. Granted there were some difference, but Nixon was right when he said “We’re all Keynesians now.” It’s a shame as Keynesianism has been a bad economic system for decades and decades. It was never intended to fix the definite problem, only to address what’s on the surface. John Maynard Keynes himself even said “In the end, we will all be dead.” Meaning “Let the next generation figure it out.”
Both parties have supported the same bad economic policies, just at different levels.
The minimum wage isn’t the only thing responsible for the devaluing of employees. Much of it is due to the devaluing of the dollar. The core of this problem goes to the Federal Reserve.
Employees are a business expense, and if the expense goes beyond the means of a business, it will simply be cut. Fast food cashiers can be cut if necessary and replaced with electronic ordering machines which do exist.
I don’t want to see anyone lose their jobs, and I would really like to see their wages increased and for employment to rise…I just want it to be done soundly, efficiently, and without making imprudent decisions that neglect the root cause.
I suspect you are just as passionate about these people and their well-being as I am. I don’t want you to think that I think badly of you by any means. I suspect we have a common over-all goal, we just think there are different ways on how to achieve it.
I hope that makes sense.
M
Mickey_Finn
Guest
This claim of causing unemployment has been batted around since the onset of minimum wage standards. Obviously at this point it’s clear that it’s a falsehood. Having a governing body, one we’ve elected to make decisions set the wage. Makes more sense than having anyone else do it. Understanding that the present wage is unacceptable removes the need to try to defend a wage set by some “market”.
In short the entire system is designed (artificial) to benefit someone. Why not the workers for a change.
E
epan
Guest
In Germany, Japan, Sweden, and many other countries, government programs do work much better than they do here. Perhaps, it is the implementation, rather than the ideas behind them.
For example, our Congress is unresponsive to the people, and is largely owned by corporate interests. If we could fix that, then we might go a long way toward fixing many other problems.
The most recent big example that comes to mind is the implementation of Obamacare. The bill was intended originally to address the big problems with the US healthcare delivery system, one of which is the role of the health insurance companies. However, when it came time to write the bill, the job was handed over to the insurance industry lobbyists. The interests who advocate good healthcare at affordable prices were cut out of the discussion, while the profit makers were handed a pen to write the bill.
So, we end up with a program which does redress some problems, but for the most part is designed to increase the profits of the insurance companies. How would you like to own a business which can only operate on a large scale, and therefore you have very little competition? Then add legislation which restricts the little competition that you do have. Then add legislation which requires every adult to buy your product, and have this rule enforced by the IRS.
Those ideas did not come from consumer advocates, or anyone interested in true healthcare delivery reform. Those ideas came from the insurance industry lobby. Don’t get me wrong. I think it is important for business interests to have a fair voice and representation. However, that voice is disproportionately large so as to distort our entire legislative process.
While Mrs. Clinton may have started out as an advocate of healthcare affordability, during the period that the bill was being written, she was paid the most money of any person in Congress by the health insurance industry, as she chaired the committee tasked with writing the Senate Bill. Obviously, this was no coincidence. If you look at insurance lobby contributions, everyone on that committee was paid more than anyone else in the Congress.
N
NoRockwell
Guest
The concern would be that even if the good intentions are there, the results would be worse. Increasing the minimum wage would lead to so many of these people who need a job to go unemployed. This is why the unemployment rate for young people are at an all-time high.This claim of causing unemployment has been batted around since the onset of minimum wage standards. Obviously at this point it’s clear that it’s a falsehood. Having a governing body, one we’ve elected to make decisions set the wage. Makes more sense than having anyone else do it. Understanding that the present wage is unacceptable removes the need to try to defend a wage set by some “market”.
In short the entire system is designed (artificial) to benefit someone. Why not the workers for a change.
By no means am I suggesting the current set up is good. Actually, it’s bad and should change, but doing it this way would be worse.
It even promotes cronyism. Major companies like Walmart and Target have lobbied for the minimum wage to go up. However, they aren’t doing it to be altruistic. The reason why they do it is because the independent, smaller competitors can’t compete with such a high business expense (ie, a high minimum wage), and end up going out of business. Big corporations like those don’t stop there though – they themselves have a record of cutting hours to part-time. The only winners are those involved in cronyism while the little guy is left out in the cold.
C
ComputerGeek25
Guest
And you’re a realist. You’re thinking through all the implications.By no means am I suggesting the current set up is good. Actually, it’s bad and should change, but doing it this way would be worse.
These problems won’t be solved overnight - simply raising minimum wage is not as simple as it sounds.
N
NoRockwell
Guest
Why thank you – very kind of youAnd you’re a realist. You’re thinking through all the implications.
These problems won’t be solved overnight - simply raising minimum wage is not as simple as it sounds.
Indeed, there is a lot to be done if we want to get to the root of the problem. I think only looking at the minimum wage neglects the ultimate problem.
Though I think it’s reasonable for people to look at it and feel concerned – both those who advocate for it and those who advocate against it. One would hope that the economic issue can be further examined beyond simply what is seen. There’s much that is unseen that needs to be looked into.
M
Morwenna
Guest
The concern would be that even if the good intentions are there, the results would be worse. Increasing the minimum wage would lead to so many of these people who need a job to go unemployed. This is why the unemployment rate for young people are at an all-time high.
By no means am I suggesting the current set up is good. Actually, it’s bad and should change, but doing it this way would be worse.
It even promotes cronyism. Major companies like Walmart and Target have lobbied for the minimum wage to go up. However, they aren’t doing it to be altruistic. The reason why they do it is because the independent, smaller competitors can’t compete with such a high business expense (ie, a high minimum wage), and end up going out of business. Big corporations like those don’t stop there though – they themselves have a record of cutting hours to part-time. The only winners are those involved in cronyism while the little guy is left out in the cold.
I agree with you, CG25!And you’re a realist. You’re thinking through all the implications.
These problems won’t be solved overnight - simply raising minimum wage is not as simple as it sounds.
NoRockwell: Like CG25, I appreciate your thoughtful and charitable posts on this thread. Welcome to CAF!
N
NoRockwell
Guest
Aw, thanks, Morwenna.I agree with you, CG25!
NoRockwell: Like CG25, I appreciate your thoughtful and charitable posts on this thread. Welcome to CAF!
I’m getting that warm feeling inside, and not just because I had pupusas con queso for breakfast.
T
TheWarriorMonk
Guest
People always like to blame the “greedy” insurance companies, but fact is that it is simple common sense. Insurance companies are not stupid. If they were they’d be out of business overnight. Being forced to take those with preexisting conditions means taking on huge costs, which of course gets passed on to you, the consumer. Common sense also dictates that young, healthy people that don’t have money are going to offset the cost. Then add on top of that all the uncertainty related to this law: constant delayed implementation via presidential fiat, uncertainty if this law will ever get fully implemented, etc. They have to raise rates, otherwise they can be out of business tomorrow.
Coming from someone that almost became an actuary…
M
Morwenna
Guest
I had to look that one upAw, thanks, Morwenna.
Sounds a bit like a *quesadilla *… maybe … ?
- Status