Paid What You`re Worth [Pic+]

Submitted by: holygod 3 years ago in

A myth to help the rich use the middle class to screw over the poor.
There are 167 comments:
Male 1,692

0
Reply
Male 2,357
0
Reply
Male 1,692
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@llaa

There`s no easy way to say this, but I mean well.

You`re completely, irrecoverably, hopelessly partisan. You refuse to entertain the notion that you are wrong. When presented with conflicting evidence, you randomly assert nonsensical points and proclaim that you have formed a rebuttal.

Look no further than your previous comment to see that this is true.

While admitting that the evidence presented is logical and consistent with mainstream economics, you proclaim that mainstream economics is incorrect. Search frictions do not invalidate supply and demand curves; you don`t understand them (to say least). Yet, for some reason, you felt that you should interject them.

Combining arrogance and ignorance is a rare talent, yet somehow you`ve accomplished it.
0
Reply
Male 1,692
No polite way to say this but I mean well.

I think you`re either a shill or naive, either way I think you`re of the spectrum and its why you like old graphs and libertarian politics, they logically make sense to you.

My argument is that you`ve been deceived by rhetoric and old formulas, humanity has a more complicated history of rich social interactions that cannot be explained through simple but foundational economic formulas. You have troubles understanding neuro-typical behavior now, you still have time to grow and learn. Like trying to understand that no one can explain a thousand words in under a 1000 characters, hence links.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@llaa

The problem being that you showed me oil.
0
Reply
Male 1,692
Socratic Method, cant make you drink but I can show you the waters.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@llaa

[quote]You provided neither an argument against or example that countered the argument and articles I provided, other than a "nuh uh".[/quote]
I know. I stopped trying to argue with you and have resorted to following your tactics: randomly saying nonsensical things.

When I ignore the things you say (which is often), it`s because they don`t make any sense within the discussion. For example, you brought up search frictions in a different debate. Randomly, you just injected it. You didn`t demonstrate how they helped you argument in the slightest. You just said, hey, search frictions - f*ck yea.

So once again, please forgive me for not taking you seriously.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
But, for one small element of it in the specific US example at least, the answer seems pretty clear:

The hiring two part-timers rather than one full-timer to avoid providing benefits issue: why not legislate that employers have to provide pro-rata benefits? If you work full hours, you get full benefits. If you work half hours, you get half benefits. Etc etc.

How you`d have "half" health insurance, I`m not sure. They could work it out I suppose. Half-coverage, perhaps? Half your bills get paid?

In any case, it would mean that businesses are still paying their obligation regards the number of hours worked, and are still free to hire part-timers or full-timers depending on the needs of their business, and aren`t incentivised one way or the other to save money at the expense of employees.

Boom. Job done. Vote me as world dictator. :)
0
Reply
Male 2,850
You could come at the problem from many directions.

You can ensure that all work provides the lifestyle, no matter how useful the work is.

You can ensure that all work meets a minimum requirement of usefulness, somehow.

You can provide everyone with the opportunity to make themselves capable of doing the more useful work (but then, what about those who, despite how hard they try, can`t attain that? And how do we do the "useless" jobs?)

It starts to get complicated...more complicated than, and let`s be honest, any of us here are really capable of navigating.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
Anyway, in general?

Minimum wage might not work in America as well as it does elsewhere because of certain unique characteristics in America that allow companies loopholes that don`t exist elsewhere.

For example, the hiring two people at 20 hours to avoid paying the healthcare of one person at 40 hours: such a problem doesn`t exist in countries where there is state-funded universal healthcare.

There are many arguments about the value of a person`s work, and whether some jobs are worth more than others. It`s all valid, of course. It doesn`t get away from the root problem, which is thus:

How can we ensure that every person has the opportunity for his labour to be valuable to society, and for that person to be rewarded for that labour with a lifestyle of a quality that we would be proud of?
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@HumanAction

"the dispute is whether or not minimum wage laws improve their situation"

Fair enough.

"Re. working hard, I don`t know. I suspect it is related to our competitiveness."

Another example, perhaps, of the fundamental difference between the way our societies are? Competition against one`s fellow man, as apposed to working with one`s fellow man? Neither are "right" objectively. But it`s interesting to compare the two motivations.

"the debate it whether or not minimum wage laws encourage those sneaky tactics."

Assuming it does; the same is true of every bit of legislation. It`s so universally true that it`s not really relevant to bring it up as a specific attribute or failing of minimum wage law.

The Chile conversation in general was a distraction from the topic. We can all agree that nothing really went right in that country for a long while.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@Phosphoreign

"no one in history ever made an invention to not have to work, or to work less hard"

That statement is so patently untrue that it`s not even worth responding to. Everyone else who has read your statement knows how wrong it is. I need not add anything further.

But I`ll disprove you anyway with a simple example. A friend of mine rigged up some tubing and a valve in his kitchen, leading from his cold water tap to his coffee machine, so he didn`t have to fill it up manually with a jug, and instead could just turn a valve when the need arose.

This saved him time and effort...otherwise known as WORK.

You assertion is proven false; at least one person in history has invented something for the purpose of working less.
0
Reply
Male 1,692
@Humanaction

You provided neither an argument against or example that countered the argument and articles I provided, other than a "nuh uh". Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

@Phosphoreign

Say what, lions sleep for 20 hours a day!
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@llaa

Do you always argue so poorly? I mean, "nuh uh" only bears so much merit.

I await your response.
0
Reply
Male 308
@Musuko... I think you are probably a good example of knowing a lot of things that aren`t true... no one in history ever made an invention to not have to work, or to work less hard... every invention has been to improve efficiency and productivity... not work less... you don`t understand why one should worship hard work? ummm... really, you don`t? Why don`t you tell a bird trying to stay alive another day that he really shouldn`t work so hard... because, you know... not eating that day is cool, right? No wonder Europe is in such financial ruin... Let me tell you the story of the Lion and the Gazelle... every morning, a Lion wakes, and it knows it must run faster than the slowest Gazelle or it will starve and die... and every morning in Africa, a Gazelle wakes, and knows it must run faster than the fastest lion or it will be eaten... doesn`t matter if you are a lion or a gazelle... when the sun comes up, you best be running... but then, you`d say, Why worship running so much??
0
Reply
Male 308
This liberal garbage gets so old. it`s not that Liberals are ignorant. it`s just that they know a whole lot of things that aren`t true. and they appeal to emotion in order to remove reason from the conversation. nobody I know thinks anyone in the world gets paid what they are worth... this is an emotional play on semantics to get your logic centers to shut down. people are NEVER paid what they are worth. people are paid WHAT THE PROFIT MARGIN PROVIDES FOR THAT SERVICE... if it takes someone two weeks to gain all the skills required for a job, well that JOB is not worth much... it doesn`t mean that PERSON isn`t worth much, it means that JOB isn`t worth much... on the other hand, if I had to spend $40k over 6 years to get a degree in Mechanical Engineering, then work in the field for 10 years in order to become CAPABLE of doing the job required, well that JOB is WORTH MORE. if I got a fast food order correct ONCE in my life, I`d be more likely to agree with min. wage increase
0
Reply
Male 1,692
Thank you for your input Musuko42. My point that humanaction continues to ignore is that I was relating that Friedman is a shuckster and his great example of a success, Chile, was not a success but left the country no better for many more years after the US sponsored coup.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Musuko

I don`t think anyone is disputing that we should help those who are underprivileged. Instead, the dispute is whether or not minimum wage laws improve their situation. Certainly it helps *some* of them, but, the overwhelming body of evidence suggests that it hurts low-income workers more than it helps.

So, to make it analogous to the drug war, no one disputes the good intentions; we dispute the outcome.

Re. working hard, I don`t know. I suspect it is related to our competitiveness.

Re. tactics - the debate it whether or not minimum wage laws encourage those sneaky tactics. Yes, many businesses will try to get the best value for the labor they buy. However, we need to consider whether policies improve upon or worsen this issue.

Re. Chile - I never said anything about Pinochet being a good or good for Chile. I merely pointed out that @llaa`s attacks applied to Allende.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
And finally: reading you all talking about Chile hits a little home. An old friend of mine lives there. Her stories of what her parents lived through are sobering.

Allende drated their economy, but Pinochet was a brutal dictator who made thousands "disappear" and ground human rights and freedoms to dust under his boot heels.

And guess which guy we (USA, UK) supported because he was a good little capitalist instead of a dirty commie?

Sometimes other things matter more than the health of the economy. There are some things that no number of healthy balance sheets can compensate for.

Allende was bad for Chile. But they elected him. If they wanted to elect a bad leadership, that was their business and their right. After all...we do it in our own countries all the time.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
By the way, in answer to the general question of whether a minimum wage encourages companies to use sneaky tactics like cutting hours and benefits to try and screw over its workers and save money...

...since when have companies ever needed encouragement to do that?
0
Reply
Male 2,850
Incidentally, a thought that always comes to mind when these discussions come about: why do we seem to worship the notion of working hard?

Every single advancement in our history has been towards reducing our need to work hard. We even call them "labour saving devices". We designed combine harvesters to avoid stoop work. We designed cars so we don`t have to walk. The list is long.

We still work hard because we need to...but surely we should see that as an unpleasant necessity rather than a noble accomplishment. Every hour that a man has to spend in necessary labour is a mark of our not yet having acheived total freedom from it.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
We have to remember that capitalism exists to serve human beings. Human beings do not exist to serve capitalism.

Capitalism is a system by which we run things to have humanity live in comfort, security, and optimism for improvement. By and large, it works quite well.

Where it does fail, when there are human beings who do not succeed in reaping the rewards of comfort, security and optimism, then we have questions to ask about how we can improve the system.

The answer should not always have to be "go get education and a better job". There will always be people for whom unskilled labour is the limits of their personal ability. Should they be doomed to a life of toil and poverty because of this? We can`t all be doctors and lawyers: not all of us can do it, and we certainly don`t need that many of them.
0
Reply
Male 8,560
normalfreak2-[quote]mega corporations they could afford to pay higher wages[/quote]

Which one would you buy?

0
Reply
Male 2,357
@normalfreak

I agree with that statement somewhat. The problem is that minimum wage laws do not solve that problem. In fact, a large amount of evidence suggests that they exacerbate the problem.

@rich

LOL.
0
Reply
Male 7,943
Generally speaking for these mega corporations they could afford to pay higher wages, they choose not to. Instead of taking a larger percentage of the profit for employees they give that in bonuses to the CEO`s everyone else get`s the finger.
0
Reply
Male 4,099
@HumanAction:
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HG

Also, what does the ACA have to do with this discussion? Seems like a random outburst.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HG

You`re proving my point. When labor becomes too expensive, companies respond by lowering other compensation, cutting hours, and/or moving full-time workers to part-time. Your own studies support this.

Do you suspect that raising the minimum wage will make companies do this more often or less often? Your studies suggest the answer is more often. I knew you agreed with me, I guess it was just a matter of setting up the argument properly.
0
Reply
Male 9,769
HumanAction

Walmart

"Walmart`s health insurance covered 44% or approximately 572,000 of its 1.3 million U.S. workers"

Of course that is out of ALL workers. The minimum wage percentage is obviously going to be much lower.

"On October 26, 2005, a Walmart internal memo sent to the firm`s Board of Directors advised... eliminating full-time positions in favor of hiring part-time employees who would be ineligible"

That memo must have been in response to obamacare 3 years before he got elected right?
0
Reply
Male 9,769
HumanAction

"McDonalds

1. Medical insurance;
2. Drug coverage;
3. Vision + Dental;
4. Disability;
5. Life Insurance;
6. 401k
7. Education assistance... "

UH HUH. See that asterisk?

*Subject to availability and certain eligibility requirements and restrictions. Talk to your local franchise owner or restaurant manager to learn more.

That`s why they hire two people at 20 hours a week instead of one person at 40 hours a week.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HG

McDonalds

1. Medical insurance;
2. Drug coverage;
3. Vision + Dental;
4. Disability;
5. Life Insurance;
6. 401k
7. Education assistance...

Non-Corporate Walmart Link
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HG

Walmart Compensation

Let`s see:

1. Avg. Full-time Hourly Wage - $12.81 (I`d like to see median but it isn`t listed);
2. 401k with company match;
3. 10% discount on merchandise;
4. Health care plan that starts at $17 per pay plan/

Want to bet McDonalds is similar?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HG

[quote]Did you even read the conclusion? Or just the last sentence?[/quote]
Yes, I read it. Their conclusion was that the minimum wage law lead to an increase in lower tail inequality.

So, you (and they) suggest to raise it to fix that. However, once raised, we will surely come full circle again. Therefore, the statement holds true that a minimum wage law increases income inequality in the lower-tail ratio.

Why?

Well, for starters (as this research somewhat implies), it sets a standard for businesses. It`s a "holy sh*t, we only need to pay people this much" effect.
0
Reply
Male 9,769
HumanAction

"Ha, but you missed (intentionally) the part where overtime is no longer possible and benefits are cut from full-time to part-time.

So... not quite a great thing is it?"

Go to walmart or mcdonalds or almost anywhere else and ask the minimum wage workers whether they get 401k, health insurance, and overtime.

Are you literally that obliviously out of your f.ucking mind?
0
Reply
Male 9,769
HumanAction

"In net, this analysis suggests that there was significant expansion in latent lower tail inequality over the 1980s, mirroring the expansion of inequality in the upper tail. While the minimum wage was certainly a contributing factor to widening lower tail inequality” particularly for females it was not the primary one."

Did you even read the conclusion? Or just the last sentence?

"We estimate that 35 ‐ 55% of the growth of lower tail inequality in the female wage distribution between 1979 and 1988, 35% to 45% of the growth of pooled gender inequality, and approximately 15% of the growth of male inequality—as measured by the differential between the log of the 50th and 10th percentiles—is attributable to the decline in the real value of the minimum wage."

"the minimum wage was certainly a contributing factor"

NOT "the INCRE
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HG

What would you rather do?

Work 40 hours @ $7.25/hr to make $290 while receiving opportunities for overtime as well as 401k contributions, stock options (Starbucks does this for example), health insurance options, etc.

Work 30 hours @ $10/hr to make $300 and get nothing else.

So.... work 10 FEWER hours to make $10 MORE and get totally f*cked elsewhere.

That is my "Redistributionist Math 101".

I`d imagine they won`t say "THANK YOU".
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HG

[quote]Follow up to my previous post.[/quote]
Ha, but you missed (intentionally) the part where overtime is no longer possible and benefits are cut from full-time to part-time.

So... not quite a great thing is it?
0
Reply
Male 9,769
HumanAction

Follow up to my previous post.

HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA
0
Reply
Male 9,769
HumanAction

"It doesn`t matter that you got cut to 30 hrs/week and will no longer be offered overtime because you know what? - you`re getting a $3/hr. raise. You`re welcome."

What would you rather do?

Work 40 hours @ $7.25/hr to make $290

Work 30 hours @ $10/hr to make $300

So.... work 10 FEWER hours to make $10 MORE.

That is your "Redistributionist Math 101"?

Then yes, I`d imagine they`d say "THANK YOU"

HAHAHAHAHAHA

XD
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HG

[quote]DFL concluded that the erosion of the federal minimum wage[/quote]
DFL refers to a study that they are referencing. not the study you linked. The study you linked is Autor, Manning, and Smith.

Page 33. aka the Conclusion of the study:

"In net, this analysis suggests that there was significant expansion in latent lower tail inequality over the 1980s, mirroring the expansion of inequality in the upper tail. While the minimum wage was certainly a contributing factor to widening lower tail inequality— particularly for females—it was not the primary one."
0
Reply
Male 9,769
HumanAction

"While the minimum wage was certainly a contributing factor to widening lower tail inequality” particularly for females”it was not the primary one."

So, yes... it contributes to inequality - according to your own study (again)"

HUH? This study:

"DFL concluded that the erosion of the federal minimum wage—which declined in real terms by 30 log points between 1979 and 1988—was the predominant cause of rising lower tail inequality"
0
Reply
Male 2,357
Redistributionist Math 101

It doesn`t matter that you got cut to 30 hrs/week and will no longer be offered overtime because you know what? - you`re getting a $3/hr. raise. You`re welcome.

XD
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@llaa

Dude-bro, you probably think that the USSR was a success too. Sorry, if I don`t take you seriously.
0
Reply
Male 1,692
cont... than thinking the kochs will save us.
0
Reply
Male 1,692
@HumanAction

Dude-Bro, you should read more rather than stick to your flawed spoonfed analysis.

As I`ve said and shown you evidence: the inflation crisis exploded during counter-revolutionary cia psy-ops, with major rises in inflation taking place while the president was trapped in the presidential palace while being shelled in late 1973. That would hamper an economy. Also, paying business owners to strike would also hamper an economy, trucker companies striking would paralyze an economy.

Just saying blaming one guy, in an economy of millions of people is pretty wild.

The site link you sent doesnt work, but your numbers cherry pick (1/12) and do not show that the Friedman economic cure was no better than the beginning of the crisis after late 1972 (when the right wing fought back against Allende with USA influence and monies.)

I`m going to end it here. I like HG`s socialist approach to the workers contract, makes a lot more sense th
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HG

[quote]LOWER. LOWER INEQUALITY[/quote]
XD. I know you`re not that dumb.

So what, by upper tail inequality they mean it increases? Haha. No... They mean inequality in the upper tail of income. Similarly, they mean inequality in the lower tail of income.

Thus, they`re concluding that minimum wage laws increase inequality in the lower tail (people who don`t make much money) of the spectrum.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HG

[quote]Yes it listed possible ways that employers deal with ANY cost increase OTHER than reduction of labor force.[/quote]
So that`s progress to you then, eh? It doesn`t matter that you poor people get less opportunities to work, less work benefits, less hours, are expected to do more with less, and less training for future growth, because hey, you`re getting paid more for every hour you`re there.

What a nice guy you are.
0
Reply
Male 9,769
HumanAction

"So... that certainly sounds so nice doesn`t it? Less benefits, less hours, less training, less opportunities."

Yes it listed possible ways that employers deal with ANY cost increase OTHER than reduction of labor force. That is kind of common. I thought you were a business owner?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HG

... and your second study.

"While the minimum wage was certainly a contributing factor to widening lower tail inequality— particularly for females—it was not the primary one."

So, yes... it contributes to inequality - according to your own study (again)
0
Reply
Male 9,769
HumanAction

"You clearly didn`t read the article. They included every study they could find - including ones that disagree with their own conclusions."

I absolutely did read they article. Please direct me to where they stated they included "every study they could find".

I guess I`m surprised that in 50 YEARS of research by economists only 31 studies came out.

0
Reply
Male 2,357
"... Workers may also respond to the higher wage by working harder on the job. But, probably the most important channel of adjustment is through reductions in labor turnover, which yield significant cost savings to employers."

So... that certainly sounds so nice doesn`t it? Less benefits, less hours, less training, less opportunities.

That`s what your own studies tell us.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HG

From your first study!

"The most likely reason for this outcome is that the cost shock of the minimum wage is small relative to most firms` overall costs and only modest relative to the wages paid to low-wage workers. In the traditional discussion of the minimum wage, economists have focused on how these costs affect employment outcomes, but employers have many other channels of adjustment. Employers can reduce hours, non-wage benefits, or training. Employers can also shift the composition toward higher skilled workers, cut pay to more highly paid workers, take action to increase worker productivity (from reorganizing production to increasing training), increase prices to consumers, or simply accept a smaller profit margin....
0
Reply
Male 9,769
HumanAction

"I`m sure you must mean the ones who either lost their jobs, or were made unable to find work as a result, yes?"

Ah. Good myth. I`ll just start pulling quotes:

"Paul Wolfson and Dale Belman have carried out their own meta-analysis of the minimum wage, focusing on studies published only since 2000. They identified 27 minimum wage studies that produced the necessary elasticity estimates and corresponding standard errors, yielding 201 employment estimates in total. They then produced a range of meta-estimates, controlling for many features of the underlying studies, including the type of worker analyzed (teens or fast food workers), whether the study focused on the supply or the demand side of the labor market, who the authors of the study were, and other characteristics. The resulting estimates varied, but revealed no statistically significant negative employment effects of the minimum wage"
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HG

You clearly didn`t read the article. They included every study they could find - including ones that disagree with their own conclusions.

Those damned Republicans though! Amirite?
0
Reply
Male 9,769
HumanAction

Let me know when you have read all that and I`ll give you more. (By the way these are done by economists who aren`t funded by billionaires).

I`ll assume you will accept everything now that I have provided "legitimate, evidenced-based" research.
0
Reply
Male 9,769
HumanAction

"Dozens of Studies Referenced"

Yes. "Joint Economic Committee Republicans". Just who I go to for unbiased information. Out of the hundreds, perhaps thousands of studies done over the years they cherry picked the ones that best fit their argument. SHOCKING.

Ok. Let`s see if I can find "studies" and data" to support my position.

1

2

3

4
0
Reply
Male 2,357
Brainwashed (noun): A term used by partisans to dismiss the legitimate, evidenced-based arguments of their opponents.

Example:

In having no legitimate counter-argument to the dozens of studies suggesting that his opponent is correct, HG said the following:

"Only someone brainwashed by billionaires could be so convinced that giving poor people more money hurts poor people."

(NOTE: Also notice the non-sequitur used by HG. Fallaciously, he assumes that raising the minimum wage laws would result in a flow of capital from rich to poor, which is demonstrably false.)
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HG

[quote]Let`s go ask the poor people who lived through that time if they are for it or against it happening again.[/quote]
Which ones? I`m sure you must mean the ones who either lost their jobs, or were made unable to find work as a result, yes? OK then, let`s ask them.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HG

Dozens of Studies Referenced

Specifically, dozens of studies from a huge variety of institutions and sources that agree with me. Somehow though, you`ll just dismiss it.
0
Reply
Male 9,769
HumanAction

Only someone brainwashed by billionaires could be so convinced that giving poor people more money hurts poor people.

The minimum wage has increased 19 times in our history. Let`s go ask the poor people who lived through that time if they are for it or against it happening again. The only people it hurts are the rich who don`t want to have to pay more.

How does a minimum wage increase hurt the poor again? Because they lose jobs? So in your mind walmart has employees they don`t need to operate and they just pay them to hang out, but if the minimum wage went up they`d fire those people?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HG

See: Denial.

I`ll never understand the complete denial by redistributionists of the historically demonstrable fact that minimum wage laws are counter-productive.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HG

[quote]like those that run the CATO institute[/quote]
What about Mises.org? There are plenty of studies done by them that dispute/disprove the myth that minimum wage laws help the underprivileged. Additionally, they specifically split from Cato and the Koch Brothers decades ago due to ideological purposes.

Pray tell, what random reason would you use to completely dismiss their findings?
0
Reply
Male 9,769
HumanAction

See: Callousness.

I`ll never understand such disregard as to see such abject pain, suffering, and/or misery without caring or doing anything to try to change things.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HolyGod

[quote]By taxing them higher and giving it to the poor you take money that doesn`t help the economy and give it to people that will spend it and help the economy.[/quote]
See: Rationalizing.

I`ll never understand such arrogance as to believe you`re moral, clever, and/or pure enough to be justified in forcing other people to think like you.
0
Reply
Male 9,769
HumanAction

"You`ve oftentimes mentioned that the wealthy - commonly referring to a golden yacht - shouldn`t be allowed to be that wealthy. However, you do believe that people should be allowed to be as wealthy as you are."

You are confusing two different conversations. We have talked theoreticals where I discuss my moral objection with such extreme wealth gaps. I also talked about mandatory worldwide wealth redistribution and what it could mean for the world`s poor. I have also REPEATEDLY said that I was just speaking in hypotheticals and not what I would actually advocate for.

Now you are bring those positions into a legitimate debate of what I would actively do if I was in a position to do so.
0
Reply
Male 9,769
normalfreak2

"I wish there were more people like you in the world and in positions of power HG."

Thanks man. That`s very kind of you. I think there are. It`s just the people with all the money and power, like those that run the CATO institute, never let them change anything.
0
Reply
Male 9,769
HumanAction

Wealth helps the economy obviously. Every penny I make is spent or actively invested. It goes back into the economy. Any additional tax I receive would take money out of the economy.

Much of the very rich have money sitting in offshore accounts or invested in passive investments (like gold). That money does nothing to help the economy. By taxing them higher and giving it to the poor you take money that doesn`t help the economy and give it to people that will spend it and help the economy.

That doesn`t mean I`m against being taxed more. I`m just stating facts.
0
Reply
Male 3,496
There is NO MIDDLE CLASS.. only degrees of poor.

You are rich or not.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@llaa

Inflation.eu

1971 - 22.11%
1972 - 163.38%
1973 - 508.03% (Allende deposed 11 Sept. 2013)
1974 - 375.88%
1975 - 340.70%
1976 - 174.32%
1977 - 63.49%
1978 - 30.32%

Yea, looks like Allende was the problem.
0
Reply
Male 7,943
I wish there were more people like you in the world and in positions of power HG.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HG

[quote]Never said that. Not once. I`m OK being taxed more.[/quote]
You`ve oftentimes mentioned that the wealthy - commonly referring to a golden yacht - shouldn`t be allowed to be that wealthy. However, you do believe that people should be allowed to be as wealthy as you are.

So, from that we can deduce that you want to take the money from those "golden yacht" types but not yourself. Simple.

[quote]Please tell me about all the people that have "STRIVED" to get to $20,000/year.[/quote]
So. You don`t think some people have strived to make more than minimum wage? How very elitist of you.

[quote]However that is semantics[/quote]
Agreed.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
Hey, if you think someone is being paid less than they are worth, YOU hire them!
0
Reply
Male 9,769
Andrew155

"It`s just reinvesting money that was already taxed."

I have never understood why people act as if capital gains tax is double taxation, if that is what you are trying to do.

If I make $100,000 and it is taxed at 20%, I keep $80,000. That original $100,000 has been taxed ONCE. Now I invest that $80,000 and it makes $20,000. That $20,000 is INCOME. It, and ONLY it is then taxed at 20%. My original invest of $80,000 is NOT taxed a second time, just the money I made. New money I earned. Taxed ONCE.

If I invest $100,000 to build my own business and earn income I am taxed on it. Why shouldn`t I be taxed if I invest in someone else`s business and I earn income from it?

0
Reply
Male 1,692
@Andrew155,

If you`d like to you can go back as far as the 1951 when you visit the last link I posted, the hyperinflation began a few years after Allende`s election. From what I could read, the 1% reinvested their monies elsewhere which raised inflation, the Nixon administration economic embargo didnt help lower inflation, and neither did the cia paying private companies to strike in the streets. But Friedman`s economic students really raised inflation through the roof, from a manufactured inflationary rise 200% during the last year of Allende`s presidency to peaks of 740% 6 months after Allende`s death to a a steady 300% for the next 4 years while the implemented their economic policies. I believe the cure was worst than the disease when you take a longer view.

Don`t worry about the point, human action asked why I disproved of Friedman when he posted the cato pamphlet.
0
Reply
Male 15,271
@Sleepyhallow your logic and skills of persuasion are on hiatus. It is the responsibility of the author to convince us that a change of policy is needed.

All I see is self-entitled layabout US workers.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
I don`t know what you`re trying to prove, llaa. Hyperinflation peaked in 1974 and Pinchet came into power at the very end of 1974. That seems like basic cause and effect. The inflation started before 1974 if that helps you understand.

Milton Friedman`s floating currencies make me not like him though. It`s one of the pieces of the puzzle as to why there is a lack of wage growth since Nixon.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
I agree with most of that, Holy God. The minimum wage of just 10 dollars isn`t such a big deal, since it`s just keeping up with inflation, but I do believe more money would flow to the bottom without that price control.

Interns are a big example. it`s strange it`s illegal to work for 7 dollars an hour, but it`s legal to work for free. Unpaid internships proliferate for a reason.

And Capital Gains income is different, too. Even the Netherlands and other European countries don`t have Capital Gains tax. It`s just reinvesting money that was already taxed.

All the current social welfare programs should be eliminated and replaced with a graduated negative income tax to around your 50k number. This would even be cheaper than our current system, and the graduation of it would prevent the welfare trap.
0
Reply
Male 1,692
@HumanAction

Allende causing hyper-inflation in 1972? Nope, hyperinflation reached its peak in 1974 @740% Dont believe me, look at the country`s inflation history.
Yes, after 72 there were economic problems that were exacerbated by the USA`s cold war policies, I linked the cia`s own damning evidence that they messed with the country`s economic situation before and after Allende was elected.

"Should we play the "let`s see how many economists agree with you" game? "

I linked the same wiki article you sent earlier, its not my fault you didnt read the whole article. Friedman`s policies are no better than the Koch brother`s Cato Randroid newsletter you posted earlier. Friedman made alot of stuff up and got rich and met presidents, but in all he just said things mega-corporations liked and he was rewarded
0
Reply
Male 9,769
Andrew155

"The roles absolutely have to be separated."

Totally agree. However the government, our tax dollars, subsidize the profits of walmart and others. Flat out. If walmart employees weren`t getting welfare from the government they couldn`t afford to take those jobs and walmart would have to raise wages to get workers. Do you not agree with that to a certain extent?

We have an entire subset of people working full time jobs that can`t sustain their basic living. Is that not the fundamental purpose of a job?
0
Reply
Male 9,769
HumanAction

"you want the wealthy to be taxed more, but not yourself"

Never said that. Not once. I`m OK being taxed more.
I`d:
Cut federal spending from $3.5T to $2.5T
Add a 2% federal sales tax.
Eliminate income taxes for those making $50,000 or less.
Implement gradual income tax that goes from 0% at $50,000 to around 35% at $1M, get rid of loopholes and credits, tax ALL income the same.

"you think we should raise the wages of minimum wage workers to that of other people who have strived to get where they are"

$10. 10 f.ucking dollars. Please tell me about all the people that have "STRIVED" to get to $20,000/year. Are you delusional?

"you don`t think earning more that 80% of Americans puts you in the "very upper echelons of income"?"

To me VERY UPPER means like 1% territory. Maybe higher. However that is semantics. If you want to call that THE VERY UPPER ECHE
0
Reply
Male 2,578
Businesses should never ever be mandated to be social welfare machines. It`s not that they shouldn`t do it - it`s that there are ALWAYS unintended consequences. If we want generosity, that`s what the government is for. The roles absolutely have to be separated.

And honestly, the United States` capitalist system is so efficient and produces so much tax revenue that we could cut spending in half and still provide better services if we did it more efficiently and intelligently.
0
Reply
Male 9,769
JadesDitoyr

"Wow, you`re starting to sound like a Capitalist!"

Seriously. I love capitalism. I`m a huge capitalist. I was raised by business owners. I`m a business owner. I invest in stock and real estate. I just have a social conscience.

I used to be just like HumanAction. Ayn Rand was my hero. Every man for himself. Survival of the fittest. Etc. However I`ve changed quite a bit in the past decade. I don`t know if it is having kids, or all the volunteer work I do.

I still love the idea of a race to the top, I just think the bottom should be better off, that`s all.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
As for unions, which I believe people should be able to freely associate, they peaked in his mythical heyday for a reason.

There was once a union leader named John L Lewis. He led the mining union, mostly for coal. He is known as the country`s greatest OIL salesman.

He fought for wages so high that mining towns in Appalachia grounded to a halt and became destitute. Meanwhile, companies began to switch to oil because mining labor was now too expensive. John Lewis is responsible for oil catching on by driving the labor costs of coal too high.

In the late 40`s, he even threatened to strike for even higher wages. Harry Truman called this a threat to national security and the government and industries began to switch from coal to oil.

He hurt his workers more, in the end. He is also responsible for the decline of PRIVATE sector unions.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
I don`t want to write anything long here, but I am going to drop some basic economics here. Listen, I wish everyone could get paid a lot, but I see the world how it is, not how it "should" be.

He says this:

"Does this mean the typical GM employee a half-century ago was worth four times what today’s typical Walmart employee is worth?." He then says, the answer is no and says the only difference is labor unions.

Emotional argument. Completely ignores markets. There is a MUCH larger supply of labor today than back then. The larger the supply of unskilled labor, the lower the wages will be. Supply and demand. And now we even have the competition of foreign workers, driving the wages down further.

That`s it. Nothing emotional, just economics.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
God, there is so much stupidity here. The Chile thing is really the biggest error in economic history here. Yeah, ignore the Marxist guy`s record.
0
Reply
Male 1,983
"I didn`t see anything in that article that suggests that people aren`t paid what they`re worth."

Then you didn`t read the article, Draculya.
Either that or your reading comprehension skills are on hiatus.
0
Reply
Male 65
Once everyone learns how to use the self checkout at Walmart, the cashier`s job will be worthless.
0
Reply
Male 15,271
I didn`t see anything in that article that suggests that people aren`t paid what they`re worth. On the contrary, I believe many people are paid more than their worth to the detriment of the economy and the nation.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@llaa

[quote]At the same time, the United States conducted a campaign to deepen the inflation crisis.[/quote]
Are you trying to imply that this was the cause of the economic downturn and not the Marxist regime of Allende? Should we play the "let`s see how many economists agree with you" game?

[quote]Friedman and his "Chicago Boys" (Free-Market economists taught by Friedman) under Pinochet made the economy and country a living hell for most.[/quote]
Well, for starters, Pinochet and his goons were responsible for making the country a living hell. The Chicago Boys did not have anything to do with the humanitarian issues. That being said, while the Chicago Boys vastly underestimated the impending Latin American credit crunch in the early 80s, they are widely credited with ending the crippling hyperinflation caused by Allende.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HG

[quote]I do not think it means what you think it means.[/quote]
Actually, it`s quite apt. In the first instance, you want the wealthy to be taxed more, but not yourself; despite, by your own admission, being in the top 20% of earners. In the second instance, you think we should raise the wages of minimum wage workers to that of other people who have strived to get where they are, just not to the level you`re at.

[quote]I don`t think that remotely qualifies as "the very upper echelons of income" but, whatever[/quote]
So... you don`t think earning more that 80% of Americans puts you in the "very upper echelons of income"? Oh really.
0
Reply
Male 837
@HG
Wow, you`re starting to sound like a Capitalist! I`m proud of you!

Yes, wages are set at the least that an employer can pay in order to get the job done at a quality that they expect.

As a prospective employee, it is my job to make them want to hire me, at a rate that I like. In their eyes, they`ve determined "I need to hire someone who does tasks A,B, and C. I want to pay them 7.25 an hour." I need to show them that I can do A,B,C, and D, and they should pay me 9.00 an hour.

I need to make myself more valuable than the schlub that they can get for 7.25, because if I can do D, that stops them from having to hire someone to do D, and then paying me is worth more.

I just took a job as a Shipping Manager at a company and turned the 9 hour shift into a 4 hour shift. (Automation is fun.) After 2.5 months, I`m going to talk to them about a raise, and see where else in the company I can help.
0
Reply
Male 907
In California, the rich and the poor ally to screw the middle class.
0
Reply
Male 9,769
Shelworth

"Pay" or "salary" is a reflection of what the company thinks a particular "job" is worth"

No. It is the lowest possible amount they can pay and still get a qualified applicant to take the position.

You don`t think walmart values the people who work the checkouts at more than $7.25/hr to their company?

Of course they do. It is an absolutely essential position.

However they can pay that little and still fill the position.

If every other company started paying $10/hr and walmart couldn`t fill the position I promise they would raise their rate.
0
Reply
Male 502
"Pay" or "salary" is a reflection of what the company thinks a particular "job" is worth. It has nothing to do with the person doing the job.
0
Reply
Male 1,692
@MeGrendel

I`ll take it that you are very ill, I can relate being insufferable when sick.
0
Reply
Male 1,692
@HumanAction -

Two points.

Your selection from the wiki article should have included the following sentence:
"At the same time, the United States conducted a campaign to deepen the inflation crisis."

US Activities that created Economic Plight in Argentina
Second: Friedman and his "Chicago Boys" (Free-Market economists taught by Friedman) under Pinochet made the economy and country a living hell for most.

Chicago Boys Shenanigans
0
Reply
Male 9,769
MeGrendel

Hahaha. No worries. Get drugs.
0
Reply
Male 8,560
@HolyGod

This pneumonia must be kicking my ass more than I thought. I`m missreading several responses. Disreguard that response. I missread both items on his list: I read it as 1) those who will NOT directly benefit & totally fubared the second one two.

I need drugs...
0
Reply
Male 9,769
HumanAction

"Oh right, because raising it to some value lower than your income is good for struggling businesses but raising it to your value is bad for struggling businesses. Like I said before - hypocrite."

Hypocrite. That word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I`m pretty sure I already adequately proved that mcdonalds could raise wages to $10 an hour and still function just fine in a previous debate.

Can we really not use common sense that obviously mcdonalds cannot pay employees $150,000 a year and still sell their product at a price that consumers will buy? What the f.uck is wrong with you?

"you`ve claimed to earn multiples of the average US income. That most definitely puts you in the upper tier of society."

I`m in the 80th percentile for income. I make more than 4 out of 5 working Americans. I don`t think that remotely qualifies as "the very upper echelons of income" but, whatever
0
Reply
Male 8,560
llaa-[quote]Just weird and cruel, your choice of words. [/quote]
Much like your choice of words that somehow `catholic` was relevent to your employer being a sonofabitch. As we were predisposed to hate him because he`s catholic.
0
Reply
Male 1,692
0
Reply
Male 9,769
MeGrendel

"Why do you think anyone deserves my exact pay for stocking shelves?"

Do you make $10 an hour? $12? $15? If not, then who exactly the f.uck are you talking to?
0
Reply
Male 1,692
Seriously, get bent. I`m flabbergasted that you would insinuate and insult my purported personality rather than discuss. I was being polite and filling you in. Just weird and cruel, your choice of words. I thought you were better than that...
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@llaa

Sadly, you`re still incorrect. Here is an article you should read: Economic History of Chile

"During 1972, the macroeconomic problems continued to mount. Inflation surpassed 200 percent, and the fiscal deficit surpassed 13 percent of GDP. Domestic credit to the public sector grew at almost 300 percent, and international reserves dipped below US$77 million. Real wages fell 25 percent in 1972"

This way all during Allende`s reign.
0
Reply
Male 1,692
@MeJerk-off

You`re a drating non-nice individual.
0
Reply
Male 8,560
llaa-[quote]Just a cheap sonofabitch catholic employer[/quote]
Religious hatred noted.

llaa-[quote]frenemy got me on board[/quote]
Holding grudges noted.

llaa-[quote]except for the bossman[/quote]
Envy noted.

A pattern may be emerging.
0
Reply
Male 1,692
@HumanAction -

You didnt read the wiki -

"During its first year in office, the Allende Government achieved economic growth, reductions in inflation and unemployment, a redistribution of income, and an increase in consumption. The government also significantly increased salaries and wages, reduced taxes, and introduced free distribution of some items of prime necessity. Groups which had previously been excluded from the state labor insurance scheme (mainly the self-employed and small businessmen) were included for the first time, while pensions were increased for widows, invalids, orphans, and the elderly. The National Milk Plan affected 50% of Chilean children in 1970, providing 3,470,000 with half a litre of milk daily, free of charge."

But your kinda right, a few years later there was capital flight by the wealthy which increased inflation, I surmise this was due to nationalizing the copper industry, which preceded his term. Venezuela anyone?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@llaa

You`re sadly mistaken regarding Chile`s history.

Hyperinflation was already well in effect before Pinochet came to power - under the helm of the very Marxist President: Salvador Allende.

Salvor Allende

As for the extent Friedman gave assistance, he merely made all of two interactions: one visit; and one letter. Either way, by most measures of economic success, Pinochet`s reign had halted the damage done by Allende.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Robert Reich is one of Bill Clinton`s former toadies. The man has absolutely no credibility after lying for Bill for so long.
0
Reply
Male 679
The article had a few good points, but it only skims the surface.

Bottom line: the bottom 90% of income earners only receive about half of all the income, yet they do the lion`s share of the actual work.

We`ve allowed the greedy to convince us that they are somehow worth so much more than everyone else. However, without the 90%, we wouldn`t have jack.

As Lincoln once observed: "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
0
Reply
Male 1,692
@MeGrendel

They paid the last guy they had $10/hr. Just a cheap sonofabitch catholic employer, I was unemployed for a year, frenemy got me on board: basically I was lied to and desperate for income. Company was run like a sweatshop, pretty much everyone that worked there lived in poverty, except for the bossman. Like I said, I quit after a month.

@humanaction - Friedman and his chicago school ilk advised Pinochet on economy which lead to insane inflation for Argentinians. Also, he was Reagan`s economics adviser. So you have that...

Friedman making pooe up video link...
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@MeGrendel

[quote]Those started out at minimum wage and discovered that it`s really very easy to improve your situation to where you`re making MORE than minimum wage[/quote]
... what?

[quote]Why do you think anyone deserves my exact pay for stocking shelves?[/quote]
... what? I don`t.

You need to reread.

0
Reply
Male 8,560
HumanAction-[quote] noticed how supporters of the minimum wage generally fall into two groups: [/quote]
How about group 3: Those started out at minimum wage and discovered that it`s really very easy to improve your situation to where you`re making MORE than minimum wage/

HumanAction-[quote] Those who believe that they will directly benefit; [/quote]
Agreed, people tend to not be bothered by that which does not benefit them.

HumanAction-[quote] Those who make in excess of the minimum wage and support raising it to a level lower than their own income [/quote]
I spent many years educating myself and working my ass off to make what I now make. Why do you think anyone deserves my exact pay for stocking shelves?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HG

[quote]when there is a financial agenda driving the results.[/quote]
That must be nice to be able to rationalize the wholesale dismissal of dozens of studies that refute your position. I mean, it`s complete bullsh*t of course, but hey, whatever makes you feel like a good person.
0
Reply
Male 8,560
llaa-[quote]My last job required me to transport and coordinate equipment that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars around the world[/quote]
And my current job is to transport and coorddinate chemical solutions that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars around the world, and I don`t work for $12 an hour.

So

unds like you didn`t hold out for enough.
0
Reply
Male 9,769
MeGrendel

"The article was about US wages and workers, and I quotes US wages and workers."

I get ya.

However I took it as you saying that in the 50s and average employee on the line is better off today because the average salary is up.

I was simply pointing out that the average worker on the line for GM is much worse off because they make far less in a third world country and the average salary you are now quoting is NOT comparable labor jobs but executive and sales salaries.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HG

[quote]Because I`m not f.ucking retarded.[/quote]
Debatable.

[quote] You can`t raise minimum wage to $150,000 a year because businesses couldn`t afford to operate.[/quote]
Oh right, because raising it to some value lower than your income is good for struggling businesses but raising it to your value is bad for struggling businesses. Like I said before - hypocrite.

[quote]That isn`t my stance on taxes at all.[/quote]
You`ve consistently held that we need to tax wealthy people more.

[quote]I`m nowhere near remotely close.[/quote]
By your previous comments on this site, you`ve claimed to earn multiples of the average US income. That most definitely puts you in the upper tier of society.

[quote]ONCE have I ever said I shouldn`t be taxed[/quote]
Who said that? You`ve stated before that you think rich (See: People even richer than you) should be taxes MORE.
0
Reply
Male 9,769
HumanAction

"What exactly would that demonstrate?"

That no matter how much data and studies you have the findings can and most likely will be misleading when there is a financial agenda driving the results.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HG

[quote]Who funded the study?[/quote]
You would know if you didn`t blindly dismiss the article.

[quote]Are the studies in the article the best sampling on the subject or just the most cherry-picked ones whose results fall in line with the agenda put forth.[/quote]
You would know if you didn`t blindly dismiss the article.

I mean, c`mon - how ridiculous to just plug your ears and say "la la la la I can`t hear you".
0
Reply
Male 9,769
HumanAction

"You want to raise minimum wage, but aren`t willing to raise it to your own level. Do you seriously not see how hypocritical that is?"

Huh? No. Obviously not. Because I`m not f.ucking retarded. You can`t raise minimum wage to $150,000 a year because businesses couldn`t afford to operate. If everyone made $150,000 a year at mcdonalds or walmart it would go out of business. Howver the peopel could make enough to survive and mcdoalds and walmart would be just fine.

"It`s just like your stance on taxes"

That isn`t my stance on taxes at all.

"you`re in the very upper echelons of income"

Huh? I`m nowhere near remotely close.

"well no, not me"

Not once, ONCE have I ever said I shouldn`t be taxed. Keep making stuff up.
0
Reply
Male 8,560
HolyGod-[quote]No I didn`t and you know it. [/quote]
I missread what you said (it was not stated clearly). I thought you mean American as in `all American jobs`. I guess we both could have been clearer. My apologies.

HolyGod-[quote]Don`t point out that the average GM worker is better off today then they were in the 50s[/quote]
The article was about US wages and workers, and I quotes US wages and workers. If you want to talk about outsourcing, that`s another topic and includes more than just GM.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HG

[quote]Do I really need to send you links to studies and data funded by the tobacco lobby that said smoking was not harmful?[/quote]
What exactly would that demonstrate?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HG

[quote]I will never understand how that is possible.[/quote]
Well, you could start by actually looking at the data. I know, I know... you don`t want to because it demonstrates that your opinion is wrong.

I get it. It`s easier to look away and march along blindly. Nobody wants to be wrong. It just so happens that this time, you are.
0
Reply
Male 9,769
HumanAction

"Like I said, why look at data when you have your feels?"

Do I really need to send you links to studies and data funded by the tobacco lobby that said smoking was not harmful?
0
Reply
Male 9,769
HumanAction

"I bet you`ll still reject them though eh?"

1. Who funded the study?

2. Are the studies in the article the best sampling on the subject or just the most cherry-picked ones whose results fall in line with the agenda put forth.

I mean honestly and truly, do you believe the Koch brothers started the CATO institute out of the goodness of their heart for the benefit of all Americans?

It is a lobbying group for the billionaire banker types who want to keep as much as they can and do anything they can to keep from having to give it up and they convince people like you to fight the fight for them.

I will never understand how that is possible.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HG

[/quote]I`m not going to believe it and then post links to it in a health debate[/quote]
Like I said, why look at data when you have your feels?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HG

[quote]What is wrong with that?[/quote]
Talk about a conflict of interests.

You want to raise minimum wage, but aren`t willing to raise it to your own level. Do you seriously not see how hypocritical that is?

You`re saying that everyone deserves to make more, so long as it`s not the same as you. It`s just like your stance on taxes:

"Tax dem dirty greedy rich people" but when someone points out that you`re in the very upper echelons of income you say "well no, not me... there has to be incentives..."

C`mon hypocrite. Telling other people what to do doesn`t make you a good person. You`re only a good person if you also sacrifice.
0
Reply
Male 9,769
HumanAction

"well-regarded piece of research"

I don`t give a s.hit if mcdonalds puts out a paper with 1,000 studies about how cheeseburgers cure cancer and it is well regarded by wendy`s and burger king, I`m not going to believe it and then post links to it in a health debate.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HG

[quote]I blindly dismiss ANYTHING if there are possible ulterior motives behind it.[/quote]
OK. How about this? I`ll go through the Cato article and go to all the cited studies and show you those.

I bet you`ll still reject them though eh? Of course you will.
0
Reply
Male 9,769
HumanAction


"I noticed how supporters of the minimum wage generally fall into two groups:

1. Those who believe that they will directly benefit; and,
2. Those who make in excess of the minimum wage and support raising it to a level lower than their own income. (You)"

Well what other categories are there?

What is wrong with that?

Again. I don`t think everyone deserves to make $150,000 a year. There has to be incentives to reach higher and achieve more and there has to be rewards for talent, ingenuity, and drive. However, if you work you shouldn`t need food stamps to survive. There is an appropriate level somewhere between those.
0
Reply
Male 9,769
HumanAction

"blindly dismiss a well-regarded piece of research that differs from your viewpoint than to debate it, amirite"

I blindly dismiss ANYTHING if there are possible ulterior motives behind it.

You have a paper funded by the CATO institute full of studies by the CATO institute and likeminded others. Now can you step outside your box for a minute and admit that:

1. If the paper and studies DIDN`T support the agenda of the CATO institute it would never get funded or published by them?

2. The people that run the CATO institute benefit financially from the agenda they have.

That being OBVIOUS. How the f.uck can you believe ANYTHING they say?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HG

I noticed how supporters of the minimum wage generally fall into two groups:

1. Those who believe that they will directly benefit; and,
2. Those who make in excess of the minimum wage and support raising it to a level lower than their own income. (You)

But hey, keep on fighting the good fight.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HG

[quote]Lemming.[/quote]
Ah yes. So much easier to blindly dismiss a well-regarded piece of research that differs from your viewpoint than to debate it, amirite?

Ostrich. (<--- Your move.)
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@llaa

[quote]Besides, Friedman was wrong and following his policies led to our current economic crisis in the USA.[/quote]
Please expand on this. Friedman was severely against the federal reserve, fiat money, and an unrestricted expansion of money. I`m very interested to understand how you`ve come to the conclusion that the US has been following Friedman`s principles.
0
Reply
Male 9,769
HumanAction

"Yes, because your opinion piece by Robert Reich on Salon.com is clearly superior to a bulletin from Cato which cites over twenty studies."

Let`s look at the motivations.

What does Salon.com gain if the minimum wage goes up?

What does Robert Reich gain if the minimum wage goes up?

What do the billionaire bankers that fund cato, run it, and fund the studies you site gain if minimum wage stays down? BILLIONS.

How many studies on smoking being safe did the tobacco lobby fund?

How many studies about GMO being totally fine can I find funded by Monsanto?

The people with all the money, power, and influence actually convince those with none (you) to blame those even worse off than they are. Or government. Or unions. Or ANYONE other than the people that actually suck all the money and resources up for themselves (the people that run CATO). It just amazes me.

Lemming.
0
Reply
Male 1,692
@humanaction -

That article lost me when it quoted Friedman, they use his non-related quote in order to stack the legitimacy of their very short treatise. Besides, Friedman was wrong and following his policies led to our current economic crisis in the USA. Also, Pinochet.

Minimum wage should move with inflation, period.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HG

[quote]Keep taking your marching orders from the propaganda machines founded and funded by people like the Koch brothers.[/quote]
Yes, because your opinion piece by Robert Reich on Salon.com is clearly superior to a bulletin from Cato which cites over twenty studies.

Good for you, man. Bravo.
0
Reply
Male 9,769
HumanAction

Keep taking your marching orders from the propaganda machines founded and funded by people like the Koch brothers.

I`m certain they have your best interests in mind. What possible ulterior motives could they have?

YOU are the middle class keeping the lower class down so that they can make billions off human suffering. Good job.
0
Reply
Male 9,769
MeGrendel

"Then you assumed wrong."

No I didn`t and you know it.

"You can thank the Unions for that."

Amazing that rich people can convince you of that. I`m no fan of what unions became. However, even without unions pretty obvious they would still outsource the jobs. When money is more important than people it will always be a good idea to outsource. But why blame greedy millionaires and billionaires when they can get you to blame unions?

"but we are talking about US minimum wage"

We are. Outsourcing is part of the problem. There used to be manufacturing jobs that the average high school graduate could get and have a life on. Now those jobs are gone and the option is service jobs that you can`t have a life on.

Don`t point out that the average GM worker is better off today then they were in the 50s because that`s bulls.hit. The average GM worker lives in mexico and makes less than $4/hr.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
Why use data when you have feels?
0
Reply
Male 8,560
patchouly-[quote]don`t have any prospects of increasing their wages. [/quote]
Bull

I`ve seen a paraplegic put herself through college to become a teacher, she made her own prosects.

I`ve seen a quadraplegic build his own engineering service, he made his own prospects.

I`ve seen a mentally handicaped man put every effort into his appearance to land a job as a host at a nice restaurant, he made his own prospects.

Don`t give me this Bull of `don`t have any prospects`.
0
Reply
Male 1,692
@MeGrendel -

My last job required me to transport and coordinate equipment that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars around the world. I was paid $12 an hour and required me to work crazy long hours coordinating with transpacific vendors during their working hours. After a month working there I got my first grey hair on my head, I quit when I realized my health was affected by the hours and stress and I still couldnt afford a single apartment (even in the ghetto) on that pay-rate. F that employer, especially when I saw what kind of home he lived in...
0
Reply
Male 8,560
HolyGod-[quote]I`m going to assume that is the average AMERICAN salary. [/quote]
Then you assumed wrong. I guess I should have stated the average annual General Motors Salary as stated by Jobs-salary.com. Sorry for the missunderstanding.

HolyGod-[quote]Since most of their jobs are outsourced to third world countries[/quote]
You can thank the Unions for that.

HolyGod-[quote]Now HOW MUCH do you think the AVERAGE GM EMPLOYEE makes again?[/quote]
$88,350. Now, that probably IS the average US GM worker, but we are talking about US minimum wage.
0
Reply
Male 9,769
McGovern1981

There is plenty to go around and the idea that paying people a livable wage would kill jobs is ridiculous.

Then take all the money the government spends on giving welfare to employed people and use it to either subsidize companies that genuinely can`t afford to pay the increased wage, lower taxes, or give incentives to businesses for hiring.
0
Reply
Male 4,745
Far too many semantics in all of these arguments. Truth is, a lot of people are on the brink of financial ruin because they don`t get paid enough and don`t have any prospects of increasing their wages. You can either pay for them while they are working 12 hour days or pay for them later on when they lose their houses and go on Welfare.
0
Reply
Male 9,769
McGovern1981

"It`d be nice if we could all make over six figures a year but how`s that supposed to work. What would your mandated wage be then?"

I don`t think everyone deserves a mansion or an island or a Ferrari. I don`t think everyone even deserves 6 figures. I think there absolutely needs to be financial incentives for those that are especially talented, work especially hard, innovate or create jobs.

However if you go to work 8 hours a day, 250 days a year providing a service to society I feel you deserve a reasonable life.

You deserve to not have to rely on medicaid, food stamps, or welfare to survive.

So let each city or area set up a basic minimum cost of living and then set the minimum livable wage according to that. I`d still allow a lower wage for full time students under 25.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]Could you survive for 3 months on half salary?[/quote]

Yep unlike most I don`t spend beyond my means and have a nice chunk in the bank.


It`d be nice if we could all make over six figures a year but how`s that supposed to work. What would your mandated wage be then?
0
Reply
Male 9,769
McGovern1981

"On the job then you can get comp. actually off I`m pretty sure you can get comp too."

I doubt if you got in a car accident your worker`s comp would cover it. However, even if it did, worker`s comp is often a percentage of your full salary and has time limits. Could you survive for 3 months on half salary?
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]What would happen if you were badly injured and couldn`t work for 3 months?[/quote]

On the job then you can get comp. actually off I`m pretty sure you can get comp too.

[quote]Let`s see: According to Jobs-salary.com, the average annual wage is $88,350. Sounds like they`re doing better.[/quote]

Essshh no wonder they needed to be bailed out.
0
Reply
Male 9,769
randomxnp

"two men in the wild, 200 miles from the nearest town with no transport or communications. One has a kilogram of gold and a bag of diamonds, the other a sack of potatoes and a bag of meat. How much could the latter charge the former for food?"

That`s a good analogy. Now let`s say you have a guy with all the steak, potatoes, food, water, and shelter in a town.

All the people in town have to eat, drink, need a place to live. So they have to go to him. He knows he can make them do anything he wants because they have no choice but to work for him. He gives them as little food and water as possible to survive and come back to work the next day. Because of their labor he can afford to continue to buy up all the resources.

Does that mean a 16 hour workday is worth a potato and a glass of water since that is all he is paying?
0
Reply
Male 9,769
McGovern1981

"That would make a vast majority in the US poor. We don`t look that poor."

Well its all perspective I guess.

What would happen if you were badly injured and couldn`t work for 3 months? If your answer is "I`d be totally f.ucked" then you are living on the edge, paycheck to paycheck, like most people. Relatively speaking you are poor.
0
Reply
Male 1,293
Agent Smith

Those people are doing work that anyone is able to do, or for which there is little demand. Amount of work has no direct bearing on worth. Scarcity and demand are what determine value.

For example a client offered me 56% of my usual fee (he did not know my charges) because he usually uses instructors who have little instructing experience and no commercial experience of the material. I have both, I have quite specialised experience and I have a good reputation. People are willing to pay me better.

I am a scarce resource. My value (what my clients will pay) is higher than that of my competitors even though I do less work per day due to experience.

Demand was low at the time so he got a reduced fee (more than 56%) but not now I`m busy.

Would you rather pay a cheap, plentiful worker $150 for a whole day diagnosing your illness, or a qualified doctor $300 for 30 minutes?
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]If you make $20,000 - $60,000 in this country you are poor. [/quote]

That would make a vast majority in the US poor. We don`t look that poor.
0
Reply
Male 39,955

Wages have not kept pace with inflation for over 20 years. I find it amazing how many of the working class at IAB defend this downward trend in the standard of living.

My family was middle of the middle class. On just my dad`s salary he bought a house, supported a stay-at-home wife, raised 4 kids, had 2 cars, could afford health insurance for us, and we managed a modest vacation in the summer.

How many could do that now? Not many, the standard of living from the 1970s has declined horribly, but they gave us smart phones so people think their standard is high.
0
Reply
Male 1,293
This entire article is based on a straw man, the misunderstanding of the meaning of value (worth is used in this case, but it means the same).

Nothing has inherent value or worth. If you don`t understand this then consider two men in the wild, 200 miles from the nearest town with no transport or communications. One has a kilogram of gold and a bag of diamonds, the other a sack of potatoes and a bag of meat. How much could the latter charge the former for food?

Value is thus agreed when a contract is made to swap goods or services for money, or one good or service for another. Nothing else. Value has no other meaning but the agreed price in a contract, a price that two parties agree is acceptable for exchange.

Hence people are paid exactly their worth, because that is the definition of worth.

Marx made precisely that error, of misunderstanding value. Most socialists make his mistake.
0
Reply
Male 9,769
MeGovern1981

"If that`s poor what do you call the ones making 0-20k?"

Destitute.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]If you make $20,000 - $60,000 in this country you are poor. [/quote]

If that`s poor what do you call the ones making 0-20k?
0
Reply
Male 9,769
MeGrendel

"Why not compate apples to apples: If 50 years ago a typical GM worker got paid $35p/h in today`s dollar (or $72,800 annuall) ..what is a GM worker making today? Let`s see: According to Jobs-salary.com, the average annual wage is $88,350. Sounds like they`re doing better."

I`m going to assume that is the average AMERICAN salary. Since most of their jobs are outsourced to third world countries I pretty much guarantee that isn`t the average salary.

As of 2011 annual report. 74,000 of GM`s 207,000 jobs were in america. The majority of the rest were in China, Mexico, India, etc.

Now HOW MUCH do you think the AVERAGE GM EMPLOYEE makes again?
0
Reply
Male 9,769
MeGrendel

"Placing a can of Pork-n-Beans on a shelf is still placing a can of Pork-n-Beans on a shelf, and is not way worth anything near being able to install an engine in a car."

How about the guy on the GM assembly line who stood all day and pushed a button every 3 minutes to stamp a piece of sheet metal?

His job is replaced by a robot now. However back then society valued him. They valued the job he did. They valued his contribution to society. They valued that he was necessary.

He earned enough to maybe buy a modest house. Take a vacation. Help put his kids through school. It is on his back that the american dream, boom growth, and the most powerful country ever known were born.
0
Reply
Male 9,769
MeGrendel

"Are you saying that a 17 year old kid putting paper towels on a shelf is accomplishing more than the dispatcher who is coordinating thousands of truckloads of goods going to the stores? "

Nope.

However I`d say that both of them are accomplishing more than the wallstreet guy who watches a computer screen moving money around in the most creative way possible so that he ends up with the most money. Plus he makes 100 times more than both of them combined.
0
Reply
Male 9,769
If you make $20,000 - $60,000 in this country you are poor.

If you realized you were poor you might question things. You might not accept that the people at the top have all the money, all the power, all the influence, and make all the rules to keep it that way. You might try to change things.

So the people at the top need a class of destitute people to make you look "middle class" by comparison. Then you feel like you are doing ok. Then you accept the status quo.

Wake the f.uck up.
0
Reply
Male 8,560
Agent00Smith-[quote]the ones that do most of the work get paid the least.[/quote]
Bull

Are you saying that a 17 year old kid putting paper towels on a shelf is accomplishing more than the dispatcher who is coordinating thousands of truckloads of goods going to the stores?
0
Reply
Male 2,579
Some poor people love to be stepped on though, I won`t be surprised to see lots of underprivileged people defending the sickeningly rich.

Stockholm Syndrome anyone?
0
Reply
Male 8,560
It`s not [quote]Paid What You`re Worth [/quote]. It`s [quote]You are compensated for what your labor is worth[/quote]. Those are not the same thing.

And the difference between GM`s wage 50 years ago and Walmarts today has nothing to do with Union. I don`t care if a Walmart worker is surrounded by every electronic imaginable. Placing a can of Pork-n-Beans on a shelf is still placing a can of Pork-n-Beans on a shelf, and is not way worth anything near being able to install an engine in a car.

Why not compate apples to apples: If 50 years ago a typical GM worker got paid $35p/h in today`s dollar (or $72,800 annuall) ..what is a GM worker making today? Let`s see: According to Jobs-salary.com, the average annual wage is $88,350. Sounds like they`re doing better.

If you have minimum skills, minimum education, show minimum motivation and provide a minimum contribution to the workplace, don`t be surpised when you make minimum wage?
0
Reply
Male 2,579
THANK YOU. I`ve been saying this for years! If anyone has a basic math skill they can figure out that the ones that do most of the work get paid the least.
0
Reply
Male 9,769
Link: Paid What You`re Worth [Pic+] [Rate Link] - A myth to help the rich use the middle class to screw over the poor.
0
Reply