What wage is just?

[Socrates92]

Surely it has already been cheapened by the fact dad can’t earn enough through working? That mum also has to work? Or dad two jobs?

Not in the sense that I was talking about. Higher education and healthcare (in Canada in terms of wait times anyways) suck largely because of how we fund them. Having insufficient funds to support your family without undergoing undue hardship is a problem, but also a distinct issue from whether services should be socially funded. I’m all in favour of enabling breadwinners to better provide for their families, but that is not the same thing as having everything taken care of.

Another thing to consider is that when you outsource responsibility, you also outsource control. The euthanasia movement simply wouldn’t have the same power to override family wishes if medicine weren’t socialized.

 

[o_mlly]

In the decades following, the value of money has consistently declined, which means that costs, prices, wages, and minimum wage must constantly increase just to stay even.

Minimum wage increases, as I argued above, can be likened to a dog chasing its tail. The increase itself becomes the cause necessitating another increase.

Any increase in wages not matched by an equal or greater increase in productivity will produce inflationary pressure or unemployment if the wage increase cannot be passed onto consumers via price increases. i.e., inflation.

An economy is a closed system:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[JimG]

I’m no economist; I’m sure the Fed knows more than I do about economics. It seems to me that ideally, the money supply ought to match the amount of goods and services that it represents, going up or down with the GDP.

I recall a reporter once asking Janet Yellen about the 2% inflation target. He asked something like, “Aren’t you telling the public that their money will lose value every year?” Her answer was along the lines of stating that they could earn more than 2% on their savings by appropriate investment.
’

 

[tafan2]

It is bogus because it is designed to misrepresent the data and give the wrong impression. For example, it shows a 68.57 percent change in inflation in the 1940s. That is supposed to be bad. And it not good, that is a 5% average. However, there were two years where the rate did skyrocket, this was mainly due to the beginning of the WWII, 1942, when we were gearing up for a total mobilization of war, and 1947, when we were feeding and rebuilding most of the non-communist world all on our own. Guess what? prices varied a lot, because there were big shortages of goods.
So that graph really says little without a little bit of thinking behind it. I already pointed out the mathematical problems of the other graph shown.

I already showed the data, BTW.

Don’t insult my mathematical ability, you really don’t want to go there unless you have an advanced degree in mathematics.

 

[tafan2]

Her answer was completely accurate, unless you do not trust the markets. Certainly the markets get it wrong at times, so there will be periods where investements do not return adequately to take account for inflation, but when inflation is stable, they do a pretty good job.

We have all seen the the typical figure that the long term return on the stock market is around 8-10% (we can quibble based on starting and ending timeframes selected, but that’s besides the point). There have been very good studies that have shown, over the long term the stock market returns come pretty close to being equal to (real GDP growth + dividends paid + inflation). Which makes sense, in a advanced economy the stock market should grow and mirror GDP growth and inflation, and then add in any profits paid to shareholders. And the studies support this exact conclusion. If we have a steady rate of inflation of 0, as opposed to 3, the stock market would return 5-7%.

Again, if you don’t trust the markets, you might think this is all just coincidence.

 

[o_mlly]

It is bogus because it is designed to misrepresent the data and give the wrong impression. For example, it shows a 68.57 percent change in inflation in the 1940s. That is supposed to be bad. And it not good, that is a 5% average. However, there were two years where the rate did skyrocket, this was mainly due to the beginning of the WWII, 1942, when we were gearing up for a total mobilization of war, and 1947, when we were feeding and rebuilding most of the non-communist world all on our own. Guess what? prices varied a lot, because there were big shortages of goods.
So that graph really says little without a little bit of thinking behind it. I already pointed out the mathematical problems of the other graph shown.

I already showed the data, BTW.

Don’t insult my mathematical ability, you really don’t want to go there unless you have an advanced degree in mathematics.

That’s adorable. Do you read what you write before you post? Let’s look at it piece by piece.

It is bogus because it is designed to misrepresent the data and give the wrong impression.

And you know that the source tried to deceive us because … you’re a mind reader? This is about economics, not psychology. And more importantly, good or bad incentives do not alter the goodness of the data. Got better data? Let’s see them.

For example, it shows a 68.57 percent change in inflation in the 1940s. That is supposed to be bad. And it not good, that is a 5% average.

Pretty confusing sentences: “… supposed to be bad … it not good.” And about your math skills, your average is incorrect. Try 5.7%. And yes, that is a 12.3% difference.

However, there were two years where the rate did skyrocket, this was mainly due to the beginning of the WWII, 1942, when we were gearing up for a total mobilization of war, and 1947, when we were feeding and rebuilding most of the non-communist world all on our own. Guess what? prices varied a lot, because there were big shortages of goods.

Oh my, where to start? No, the inflation rate in the U.S. did not increase because of an increase in U.S. exports nor would it ever. CPI is the Consumer Price Index is not the Foreign Price Index.

The price controls of 1941 to 1945 (like minimum wage controls) interfered with markets. When removed, pent-up consumers demand fueled price increases. In a similar way, wage price controls do not alter the markets but only frustrate. And, eventually, the market always clears by incorporating the wage increases into the economy through price increases or unemployment.

Because your posts are long on opinion, short on facts and nil on supporting references, I won’t be responding to future ones that lack authoritative references for your claims.

 

[tafan2]

ecause your posts are long on opinion, short on facts and nil on supporting references, I won’t be responding to future ones that lack authoritative references for your claims.

That’s fine, we wont agree on much, so I understand. As to being long on opinion, guilty but perhaps pot calling kettle?, short on facts and nil on supporting references, I take extreme exception to that. Two weeks ago I was ageing with you on this very thread and presented doznes of references in support of my claims. As to this latest, the only issue was inflation and there isn’t much, but I am the one who posted the actual historical CPI data. Which pretty much supported everything I said.

 

[Dracarys]

Wow, EVERYTHING is a mortal sin and we are all hell bound if that is true. I guess that is atopic for another thread. My point is that it is HIGHLY irresponsible and and lacking in all common sense to just keep pumping out babies if you cant afford them. If you want to do that go off the grid and do not accept any taxpayer money to support your huge family.

 

[Dracarys]

Strange how you attempt to discredit the poster by asking if they don’t agree with St Paul, thus imply they are not catholic enough.

Not strange at all. That poster keeps telling me that it is the teaching of the church to pay their employees a fortune in the name of a “living wage”. I just think he is cherry picking church teaching.

 

[JimG]

do not accept any taxpayer money to support your huge family.

But of course if the kids grow up to be wage earners their social security withholding taxes will go to support those on social security who did not even have children. Or they might become business owners who employ hundreds or thousands of people.

 

[_Ruby]

I dont think it’s just the need to buy new things that leads to people struggling.

People rely on things like good health and education to be able to effectively navigate the employment market. You can allow the free market to regulate wages, but your population seeking that works needs to be fit and able to work their way up, or educated enough to go into higher paid industries to help regulate the wage market.

The problem is, if you cripple people with spiralling healthcare costs and debt, or student loans, you also severely limit their ability to find better paid work. Leaving a population who may have very little choice but to take extremely poorly paid work and limited means to escape that situation.

People are going into debt not just because they want to buy a big TV every 6 months, but because they actually want to stay alive or give themselves a chance of staying above water in an economy that requires higher education for the majority of its well paid work.

 

[Theo520]

And for every person like that, there’s an employer who is more than willing to have them work a full week and pay them enough to live on for a day …

Please stop making stuff up.
No US employer pays a day’s wages for a weeks work

 

[leonhardprintz]

Is it unethical to allow a grown person to volunteer for free? (with the obvious understanding that that adult is earning a living elsewhere?) If so, why would it be unethical to pay an adult something in between zero and the current level of the min. wage?

You do actually answer this very question in this post. There is nothing wrong with a person volunteering out of the kindness of their hearts. However that is not the same as a working relationship. If companies take advantage of workers, knowing they can pay them a lower wage, and doing so, then they’re abusing them.

Have we ever stopped and considered maybe the wages are enough, but that our consumerist/materialist lifestyles are what’s wrong and the need to always buy the newest is what leads to people struggling?

A living wage doesn’t include luxury items, its really basic things like a roof over your head, enough food to sustain you, clothes, phone and internet access.

Basic neccessities in modern society. A car isn’t part of this equation, nor is having fancy clothes, or the ability to go out an eat, or to be able to afford travelling to exotic countries for vacation, or to buy presents for people, or being able to go out and have drinks with people every weekend.

So no, I don’t think abandoning consumerism is the option if you’re denying that people ought to be able to afford living.

 

[leonhardprintz]

The word “crisis” does. Your just arguing semantics. 75 people is not an invasion. 750 even is not an invasion. 75000 in one month and its now getting warmer IS an invasion.

The word “invasion” doesn’t occur in that article. It is not an article describing an invasion. There is no army invading you. No declaration of war. No intent of conquest. So in any formal sense, there’s no invasion of the US.

But there also isn’t any invasion in the informal sense. The number of immigrants from Mexico has been steadily declining for the past ten years. This means you don’t have an invasion problem.

The total number of mexicans in your country is lower today than ten years ago, and has been declining each year.

However, you are having an increasing amount of illegal immigrants overstaying their Visa.

But everyone pays taxes. It sounds to me like your not really paying your specific loan right?

Look up the difference between “investment” and “loan”. Its not unreasonable to consider the government paying for citizens to get a good education as an investment. Its certainly resulted in danes being in general a lot more well read than US citizens.

Give me a break, even you don’t really believe this nonsense! You Danes just all a happy group of people living in utopia where artist and poets are free to express their muze at taxpayer expense. Yeah sure.

Its not a utopia (which means: ‘no place’), its a real world country. It has its good and bad parts, but on the whole I’m happy about living here and I have no intentions of becoming a US citizen.

Leonhard:

Dracarys:

“He who doesn’t work, must not eat”

Students are studying, that is a work. That’s their job at that station in life.

Studying is not work that pays a wage.

No, but it is work. It is in fact an education, which in many cases, especially with the case of STEM fields, leaves them a lot better equipped at earning a higher pay than if they didn’t take it. It also gives us a much better informed citizenship, which is desirable for any Democracy.

Leonhard:

Aren’t you a Catholic?

Yes, but I find this pope to be hopelessly liberal with all the comments he has made.

There was nothing liberal about Pope Leo XIIIth, neither theologically, nor in terms of political or sociological outlook. He rejected both the evils of Communism and Individualism.

Yes i know and respect that you don’t want a minimum wage.

I honestly don’t. Minimum wage laws aren’t the right solution to the problem. They have all sorts of problems of their own.

Where is your compassion for the business owner?

If they can’t pay a living wage, they should close their business. It isn’t moral to offer anything but a living wage to adults.

 

[Elf01]

Basic neccessities in modern society. A car isn’t part of this equation, nor is having fancy clothes, or the ability to go out an eat, or to be able to afford travelling to exotic countries for vacation, or to buy presents for people, or being able to go out and have drinks with people every weekend.

I would consider access to transport a necessity. In very rural areas that may be a car. A good transport network could also work.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LilyM:

And for every person like that, there’s an employer who is more than willing to have them work a full week and pay them enough to live on for a day …

Please stop making stuff up.
No US employer pays a day’s wages for a weeks work

The posting that @LilyM made was parallel to and just as valid as the one from vz71, who said:

• 
  People are still willing to do an honest day’s work; the trouble is they want a week’s pay for it.

And LilyM said:

• 
  And for every person like that, there’s an employer who is more than willing to have them work a full week and pay them enough to live on for a day

Neither of them were talking about actual employment conditions. They were both talking about willingness. So the observation that there are no employers who actually pay people a day’s wages for a weeks worth of work is irrelevant, since that could be because those employers cannot find any worker who will work a week for a day’s wages - not because they wouldn’t do it if they could. And it is probably true that there are employees who would be happy to work for a day and get a week’s pay, but they don’t do it because they can’t find such a cushy job. Fortunately both these extremes are rare. Most employers want to pay people a living wage and most employees want to provide fair labor in exchange for their pay. But vz71 was the first to postulate the extreme in greed on the part of employees. LilyM just said that the same possibility exists for employers. So your criticism is not aimed well.

 

[vz71]

A living wage doesn’t include luxury items, its really basic things like a roof over your head, enough food to sustain you, clothes, phone and internet access.

Internet access?

I asked about this several days ago, and no one has been able to justify that within Catholic teaching.

 

[vz71]

If they can’t pay a living wage, they should close their business. It isn’t moral to offer anything but a living wage to adults

Living wage being conveniently undefined until it is decided that YOUR business is not liked.

 

[vz71]

But vz71 was the first to postulate the extreme in greed on the part of employees.

Actually it was just a joke reposted from another thread.
But reactions to the obvious humor are very telling.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

But vz71 was the first to postulate the extreme in greed on the part of employees.

Actually it was just a joke reposted from another thread.
But reactions to the obvious humor are very telling.

Obviously it wasn’t all that obvious.