Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

15$ a hour minimum wage:

harrytruman
Posts: 812
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 3:12:39 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Henry Ford payed his workers 5$ a day, adapted to inflation, 5$ in 1914 is worth 119$ today, at a 8 hour shift, this means that workers would be payed 15$ a hour, if Henry Ford could do it in 1914, with far less income for his company than corporations today, why is it that they can't afford it?
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 12:04:43 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/5/2016 3:12:39 AM, harrytruman wrote:
Henry Ford payed his workers 5$ a day, adapted to inflation, 5$ in 1914 is worth 119$ today, at a 8 hour shift, this means that workers would be payed 15$ a hour, if Henry Ford could do it in 1914, with far less income for his company than corporations today, why is it that they can't afford it?

I think this is a really silly comparison, lol.

First, you can't possibly compare 1914 to 2016. The income tax didn't even exist until 1913, and even then it was something like 2% or 3%. Obviously that's a substantial cost to doing business, as is providing healthcare, pensions, complying with regulations, etc.

Second, we live in a globalized economy, so surely there are implications if companies are able to outsource to other countries for the purpose of cheap labor. Of course, most minimum-wage jobs -- service sector, restaurants, etc. -- are non-exportable, so this is probably a less significant reason, but the broader subject of wages (for even, say, companies that pay slightly above the minimum wage, but not quite a "living wage") is obviously crucial to the discussion of global competitiveness insofar as paying out wages makes it nearly impossible to compete in a global marketplace, and as a result leads to substituting capital for labor or just flat-out laying people off and downsizing.

Third, there's a HUGE difference between an economy-wide minimum wage and the wage rates for a specific company. Ford's story is a textbook example of the efficiency wage hypothesis -- higher wages feed through to higher productivity, more employee discipline, higher morale, etc. and that effectively "pays for" the wage hike -- but it's evidence of the existence of a considerable amount of untapped efficiencies: eventually, we hit the point of diminishing returns. I suspect we're far closer to that point today in a much larger, globalized economy than we were back in 1914.

Again, maybe a company like Ford or Walmart or Costco or what have you could afford to pay $15. But that need not mean that EVERY company could follow suit. If anything, it would likely create barriers to entry for start-ups without these kinds of untapped efficiencies, which would grant even more monopoly power to retail giants like Walmart. Obviously that's not the least bit desirable.

But the main story around $15 is that we have absolutely no precedent for it. We have no real reason to argue one way or the other as to whether it would actually work, because the research we have on the minimum wage doesn't cover such a large increase or such a large minimum relative to the median wage (most work is about 50-60% of the median wage, which is why I'd be much more likely to support a $12 minimum wage). It's incredibly untested and there are other alternatives, like the earned income tax credit, that don't have these potential drawbacks that we could use to cover for some of the immense risks of a higher minimum wage.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,313
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 9:19:46 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/5/2016 12:04:43 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/5/2016 3:12:39 AM, harrytruman wrote:
Henry Ford payed his workers 5$ a day, adapted to inflation, 5$ in 1914 is worth 119$ today, at a 8 hour shift, this means that workers would be payed 15$ a hour, if Henry Ford could do it in 1914, with far less income for his company than corporations today, why is it that they can't afford it?

I think this is a really silly comparison, lol.

First, you can't possibly compare 1914 to 2016. The income tax didn't even exist until 1913, and even then it was something like 2% or 3%. Obviously that's a substantial cost to doing business, as is providing healthcare, pensions, complying with regulations, etc.

Second, we live in a globalized economy, so surely there are implications if companies are able to outsource to other countries for the purpose of cheap labor. Of course, most minimum-wage jobs -- service sector, restaurants, etc. -- are non-exportable, so this is probably a less significant reason, but the broader subject of wages (for even, say, companies that pay slightly above the minimum wage, but not quite a "living wage") is obviously crucial to the discussion of global competitiveness insofar as paying out wages makes it nearly impossible to compete in a global marketplace, and as a result leads to substituting capital for labor or just flat-out laying people off and downsizing.

Third, there's a HUGE difference between an economy-wide minimum wage and the wage rates for a specific company. Ford's story is a textbook example of the efficiency wage hypothesis -- higher wages feed through to higher productivity, more employee discipline, higher morale, etc. and that effectively "pays for" the wage hike -- but it's evidence of the existence of a considerable amount of untapped efficiencies: eventually, we hit the point of diminishing returns. I suspect we're far closer to that point today in a much larger, globalized economy than we were back in 1914.

Again, maybe a company like Ford or Walmart or Costco or what have you could afford to pay $15. But that need not mean that EVERY company could follow suit. If anything, it would likely create barriers to entry for start-ups without these kinds of untapped efficiencies, which would grant even more monopoly power to retail giants like Walmart. Obviously that's not the least bit desirable.

But the main story around $15 is that we have absolutely no precedent for it. We have no real reason to argue one way or the other as to whether it would actually work, because the research we have on the minimum wage doesn't cover such a large increase or such a large minimum relative to the median wage (most work is about 50-60% of the median wage, which is why I'd be much more likely to support a $12 minimum wage). It's incredibly untested and there are other alternatives, like the earned income tax credit, that don't have these potential drawbacks that we could use to cover for some of the immense risks of a higher minimum wage.

I'm really, really glad you're back. :)
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2016 7:05:26 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/5/2016 3:12:39 AM, harrytruman wrote:
Henry Ford payed his workers 5$ a day, adapted to inflation, 5$ in 1914 is worth 119$ today, at a 8 hour shift, this means that workers would be payed 15$ a hour, if Henry Ford could do it in 1914, with far less income for his company than corporations today, why is it that they can't afford it?

You point to to Ford to show us how nicely he paid people when the government was practically non-existent to his concerns. And, you draw from that the need for more government, rather than less? Idiot.
slo1
Posts: 4,343
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 1:44:17 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/18/2016 7:05:26 PM, Rukado wrote:
At 5/5/2016 3:12:39 AM, harrytruman wrote:
Henry Ford payed his workers 5$ a day, adapted to inflation, 5$ in 1914 is worth 119$ today, at a 8 hour shift, this means that workers would be payed 15$ a hour, if Henry Ford could do it in 1914, with far less income for his company than corporations today, why is it that they can't afford it?

You point to to Ford to show us how nicely he paid people when the government was practically non-existent to his concerns. And, you draw from that the need for more government, rather than less? Idiot.
Be nice
tornshoe92
Posts: 361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 5:44:25 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/5/2016 12:04:43 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/5/2016 3:12:39 AM, harrytruman wrote:
Henry Ford payed his workers 5$ a day, adapted to inflation, 5$ in 1914 is worth 119$ today, at a 8 hour shift, this means that workers would be payed 15$ a hour, if Henry Ford could do it in 1914, with far less income for his company than corporations today, why is it that they can't afford it?

I think this is a really silly comparison, lol.

First, you can't possibly compare 1914 to 2016. The income tax didn't even exist until 1913, and even then it was something like 2% or 3%. Obviously that's a substantial cost to doing business, as is providing healthcare, pensions, complying with regulations, etc.

Second, we live in a globalized economy, so surely there are implications if companies are able to outsource to other countries for the purpose of cheap labor. Of course, most minimum-wage jobs -- service sector, restaurants, etc. -- are non-exportable, so this is probably a less significant reason, but the broader subject of wages (for even, say, companies that pay slightly above the minimum wage, but not quite a "living wage") is obviously crucial to the discussion of global competitiveness insofar as paying out wages makes it nearly impossible to compete in a global marketplace, and as a result leads to substituting capital for labor or just flat-out laying people off and downsizing.

Third, there's a HUGE difference between an economy-wide minimum wage and the wage rates for a specific company. Ford's story is a textbook example of the efficiency wage hypothesis -- higher wages feed through to higher productivity, more employee discipline, higher morale, etc. and that effectively "pays for" the wage hike -- but it's evidence of the existence of a considerable amount of untapped efficiencies: eventually, we hit the point of diminishing returns. I suspect we're far closer to that point today in a much larger, globalized economy than we were back in 1914.

Again, maybe a company like Ford or Walmart or Costco or what have you could afford to pay $15. But that need not mean that EVERY company could follow suit. If anything, it would likely create barriers to entry for start-ups without these kinds of untapped efficiencies, which would grant even more monopoly power to retail giants like Walmart. Obviously that's not the least bit desirable.

But the main story around $15 is that we have absolutely no precedent for it. We have no real reason to argue one way or the other as to whether it would actually work, because the research we have on the minimum wage doesn't cover such a large increase or such a large minimum relative to the median wage (most work is about 50-60% of the median wage, which is why I'd be much more likely to support a $12 minimum wage). It's incredibly untested and there are other alternatives, like the earned income tax credit, that don't have these potential drawbacks that we could use to cover for some of the immense risks of a higher minimum wage.

Moreover, Ford did this primarily due to the incredible rate of skilled labor turnover in the booming automotive industry at the time. His goal with the relatively high wage that he offered was to break out of the rut his competitors were stuck in with having to hire then train new labor all of the time. By voluntarily paying more (without force from the government, as would be the case in a minimum wage increase) he was able to retain his skilled laborers, thereby increasing productivity which he used to justify the higher wages.
"Next time I see a little old lady going to church I am going kick her in the ovaries because she is personally responsible for this. Thanks Izbo." -C_N
ballpit
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 11:38:05 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/5/2016 3:12:39 AM, harrytruman wrote:
Henry Ford payed his workers 5$ a day, adapted to inflation, 5$ in 1914 is worth 119$ today, at a 8 hour shift, this means that workers would be payed 15$ a hour, if Henry Ford could do it in 1914, with far less income for his company than corporations today, why is it that they can't afford it?

This comparison seems like it's simply grasping at straws.
This user is an Angel and will answer any DDO-related questions to the best of their ability. PM for help, or post in the Welcome Thread.
Before you do anything:
http://www.debate.org......
Welcome Thread:
http://www.debate.org......
New Members Read Me:
http://www.debate.org......
Argument Bingo
http://imgur.com......
I avoid fights with gay people because even when you win you lose. - Wylted
Midnight1131
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 8:45:26 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/5/2016 3:12:39 AM, harrytruman wrote:
Henry Ford payed his workers 5$ a day, adapted to inflation, 5$ in 1914 is worth 119$ today, at a 8 hour shift, this means that workers would be payed 15$ a hour, if Henry Ford could do it in 1914, with far less income for his company than corporations today, why is it that they can't afford it?

Well a really simple counter to that question is that a government mandated $15/hr minimum wage wouldn't only apply to corporations. Walmart might be able to give their workers a raise [but that doesn't guarantee they will,] but it would be devastating to small businesses. Small businesses, when forced to pay people more than what their labor is worth, have no other option than to lay workers off, greatly slowing the growth of their business. A $15 min wage hike will essentially kill any small business competition.
#GaryJohnson2016
#TaxationisTheft
#TheftisTaxation
ballpit
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 9:39:03 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/5/2016 3:12:39 AM, harrytruman wrote:
Henry Ford payed his workers 5$ a day, adapted to inflation, 5$ in 1914 is worth 119$ today, at a 8 hour shift, this means that workers would be payed 15$ a hour, if Henry Ford could do it in 1914, with far less income for his company than corporations today, why is it that they can't afford it?

The difference in costs to make things now would make it impossible and people would be forced into the same situation they are in now.
This user is an Angel and will answer any DDO-related questions to the best of their ability. PM for help, or post in the Welcome Thread.
Before you do anything:
http://www.debate.org......
Welcome Thread:
http://www.debate.org......
New Members Read Me:
http://www.debate.org......
Argument Bingo
http://imgur.com......
I avoid fights with gay people because even when you win you lose. - Wylted
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2016 2:40:21 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
In some businesses, lousy workers can be can be carried by good workers. It's like when you do $20/hour worth of labor and the other guy does $10, and you both take home $15.

In the negrohood, businesses can't get good employees to carry the bad employees. So, taxpayers pay part of the pay of these employees. The IRS labels these areas "enterprise zones" and gives employers tax credits to cover the black workers.

If we did go to federal minimum wage of $15/hour, "enterprise zones" would have to be greatly expanded.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2016 11:47:41 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/4/2016 2:40:21 AM, Rukado wrote:
In some businesses, lousy workers can be can be carried by good workers. It's like when you do $20/hour worth of labor and the other guy does $10, and you both take home $15.

In the negrohood, businesses can't get good employees to carry the bad employees. So, taxpayers pay part of the pay of these employees. The IRS labels these areas "enterprise zones" and gives employers tax credits to cover the black workers.

If we did go to federal minimum wage of $15/hour, "enterprise zones" would have to be greatly expanded.

Lol negrohood.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
ViceRegent
Posts: 604
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 2:21:56 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/5/2016 3:12:39 AM, harrytruman wrote:
Henry Ford payed his workers 5$ a day, adapted to inflation, 5$ in 1914 is worth 119$ today, at a 8 hour shift, this means that workers would be payed 15$ a hour, if Henry Ford could do it in 1914, with far less income for his company than corporations today, why is it that they can't afford it?

It is not a question of can they afford it, but does the market require them to do so. The answer is no. By raising the minimum wage, all you will do is increase unemployment and cause inflation. The best thing to do economically is abolish it.
harrytruman
Posts: 812
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 7:34:23 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 2:21:56 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 5/5/2016 3:12:39 AM, harrytruman wrote:
Henry Ford payed his workers 5$ a day, adapted to inflation, 5$ in 1914 is worth 119$ today, at a 8 hour shift, this means that workers would be payed 15$ a hour, if Henry Ford could do it in 1914, with far less income for his company than corporations today, why is it that they can't afford it?

It is not a question of can they afford it, but does the market require them to do so. The answer is no. By raising the minimum wage, all you will do is increase unemployment and cause inflation. The best thing to do economically is abolish it.

I can see your point, Switzerland has no minimum wage and the average earnings of their workers is 6,200$ a month, or 2,400$ a month adapted to their high cost of living, and the constitution never grants the Federal Government the power to establish a minimum wage, so this power would be left to the states respectively or to the people.
ViceRegent
Posts: 604
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 8:32:09 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/6/2016 7:34:23 PM, harrytruman wrote:
At 6/5/2016 2:21:56 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 5/5/2016 3:12:39 AM, harrytruman wrote:
Henry Ford payed his workers 5$ a day, adapted to inflation, 5$ in 1914 is worth 119$ today, at a 8 hour shift, this means that workers would be payed 15$ a hour, if Henry Ford could do it in 1914, with far less income for his company than corporations today, why is it that they can't afford it?

It is not a question of can they afford it, but does the market require them to do so. The answer is no. By raising the minimum wage, all you will do is increase unemployment and cause inflation. The best thing to do economically is abolish it.


I can see your point, Switzerland has no minimum wage and the average earnings of their workers is 6,200$ a month, or 2,400$ a month adapted to their high cost of living, and the constitution never grants the Federal Government the power to establish a minimum wage, so this power would be left to the states respectively or to the people.

I disagree. Freedom of contract is a God-given right and cannot be interfered with under the 9th Amendment.
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 6:23:07 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
I would like to posit my thoughts;

Federal Government Minimum Wage is a danger to our economy. I believe, if there is a minimum wage, it MUST be in the hands of the State (or lower) Government.

The US is too complex of a nation. The very Economic Realities of one state may bare little comparison to another States economic reality. A minimum wage that is too low for one State (California), may be far too high another State (Mississippi). Even within a State you may see such disparities (Take for examples in New York State).

What happens when you write down a single number and decide that will cover the Entire United States? Nothing Good. Yes, States can write their own numbers down, but they can't effectively go lower then Federal Minimum Wage, and so the states who would do better with lower MWs are screwed.

I would also like to point out that we cannot base it around such relative concepts as "Living Wage", as so many unnecessary expenses are often included, and reveals the average Young American overwhelming sense of entitlement (and their increasing skill at painting undue entitlement as some right and moral privileged). I believe Minimum Wage should be exactly that. Minimum Living Wage, not Minimum Comfort Wage.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 3:20:30 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
If a higher minimum wage is below the prevailing wage, then nothing happens because employees are already paying the minimum. Ford wasn't forced by the government to pay what he did, the market made him pay it to get a stable skilled workforce. Auto workers today ar epaid considerably more than $15/hr for that reason.

A high minimum wage does three things:

1. Jobs are lost as business become unprofitable. For fast food, people will eat out less often and bring their lunch more often.

2. More automation becomes economically viable. It used to take 90% of the population to raise the food needed to feed everyone. Now it's done by fewer than 4%. 86% of the jobs in American were wiped out by farm equipment.

3. For $15/hr you can hire a liberal arts major. Low-skilled employees are replaced with higher skilled employees obtained at the wage required. Costco is often cited as the example of successfully paying more for higher skills. It works for Costco because they are in the logistics business; one that can benefit from higher skills enough to pay for it. Not the case with jobs like fast food.
ZenBear
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 6:48:44 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/5/2016 2:21:56 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
It is not a question of can they afford it, but does the market require them to do so. The answer is no. By raising the minimum wage, all you will do is increase unemployment and cause inflation. The best thing to do economically is abolish it.

What happens when you abolish the minimum wage? Do employers start offering low pay jobs en masse? Now you have low unemployment, congrats. Those employed people can't live off of their wages, so they have to seek government aid. They are spending their time, a strictly limited resource, for meager gain. School is still prohibitively expensive. Many people will still need cars to get to work, phones and internet to stay in contact with work, health care to stay fit for work (maybe government granted, maybe not), etc. Cost of living negates the benefit of employment. Am I wrong? What's the net gain here?
BillSPrestonEsq
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 11:41:26 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/11/2016 6:48:44 AM, ZenBear wrote:
At 6/5/2016 2:21:56 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
It is not a question of can they afford it, but does the market require them to do so. The answer is no. By raising the minimum wage, all you will do is increase unemployment and cause inflation. The best thing to do economically is abolish it.

What happens when you abolish the minimum wage? Do employers start offering low pay jobs en masse? Now you have low unemployment, congrats. Those employed people can't live off of their wages, so they have to seek government aid. They are spending their time, a strictly limited resource, for meager gain. School is still prohibitively expensive. Many people will still need cars to get to work, phones and internet to stay in contact with work, health care to stay fit for work (maybe government granted, maybe not), etc. Cost of living negates the benefit of employment. Am I wrong? What's the net gain here?

I really doubt wages would change much if at all. It just isn't worth it to most people, especially when there is welfare. I think some new jobs would be created, but mostly entry level very low skilled employees, which is the idea.
No minimum wage is better for the economy for a couple reasons. if someone is willing to work for$ 7.00 instead of $7.25, now they can, and if they are willing it must be to their benefit. Is someone going to fuss over the 25 cents? Probably not, but it's beside the point, labor should find it's own value based on supply and demand.
It is a drain on the economy to pay more for a good or service than another is willing to offer for it.
Low paying jobs are meant to be entry level jobs, a stepping stone towards a career, not to support a family. The creation of a $15 minimum wage is to completely ignore that labor like any other commodity should be able to find it's own value based on what others are willing to pay. If paying this higher wage is forced on the economy, it is like putting an obstacle in way of achieving the ultimate end, which is accomplishing the task the wage is compensating for.
The 'extra' money may benefit the MW employee to some degree, but prices will rise to accommodate the higher payroll costs nationally anyways. The whole economy will become less efficient ultimately hurting everyone including the employee now making $15 an hour.
ZenBear
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2016 4:33:38 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/12/2016 11:41:26 PM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
I really doubt wages would change much if at all. It just isn't worth it to most people, especially when there is welfare. I think some new jobs would be created, but mostly entry level very low skilled employees, which is the idea.
No minimum wage is better for the economy for a couple reasons. if someone is willing to work for$ 7.00 instead of $7.25, now they can, and if they are willing it must be to their benefit. Is someone going to fuss over the 25 cents? Probably not, but it's beside the point, labor should find it's own value based on supply and demand.
It is a drain on the economy to pay more for a good or service than another is willing to offer for it.
Low paying jobs are meant to be entry level jobs, a stepping stone towards a career, not to support a family. The creation of a $15 minimum wage is to completely ignore that labor like any other commodity should be able to find it's own value based on what others are willing to pay. If paying this higher wage is forced on the economy, it is like putting an obstacle in way of achieving the ultimate end, which is accomplishing the task the wage is compensating for.
The 'extra' money may benefit the MW employee to some degree, but prices will rise to accommodate the higher payroll costs nationally anyways. The whole economy will become less efficient ultimately hurting everyone including the employee now making $15 an hour.

Your argument hinges on the idea that business works on the cutting edge of efficiency, which is plainly false. If raising the minimum wage means companies will have no other option than to raise their prices just to stay afloat, then why are some people making millions and billions of dollars in salary and bonuses? Are these people accepting the lowest possible wage for the value they contribute? Would they stop working if they were offered less? Is their contribution to the company precisely equal to their wage? The answer is no, to all of these questions.

Employers do not offer wages based on economic theory. They offer what they can get away with. If they can't afford to hire someone at a certain wage, then they won't hire anyone. If they can pay someone less than what they contribute to the company profit, then that profit becomes theirs to spend as they see fit. There is nothing holding them to peak efficiency in its use. Competition exists, but that only pushes so far as their competition is willing to go. Often times this takes a dark turn, where the only way to compete is to cut costs in every way possible to match prices by reducing worker pay and safety measures; not because of economic realities, but because someone else does it and has enough money to get away with it until their competition folds.

The economy is inefficient because of the wage inequality we see today. The more money that languishes in foreign bank accounts and luxury assets, the less gets circulated through the system. The decisions of employers to pay themselves exorbitant wages without regard to the actual value they bring to the table is far more detrimental to the economy than a wage hike for the low-end employees that businesses can't function without.

http://www.aol.com...

http://www.forbes.com...
BillSPrestonEsq
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2016 10:28:09 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/13/2016 4:33:38 AM, ZenBear wrote:
At 6/12/2016 11:41:26 PM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
I really doubt wages would change much if at all. It just isn't worth it to most people, especially when there is welfare. I think some new jobs would be created, but mostly entry level very low skilled employees, which is the idea.
No minimum wage is better for the economy for a couple reasons. if someone is willing to work for$ 7.00 instead of $7.25, now they can, and if they are willing it must be to their benefit. Is someone going to fuss over the 25 cents? Probably not, but it's beside the point, labor should find it's own value based on supply and demand.
It is a drain on the economy to pay more for a good or service than another is willing to offer for it.
Low paying jobs are meant to be entry level jobs, a stepping stone towards a career, not to support a family. The creation of a $15 minimum wage is to completely ignore that labor like any other commodity should be able to find it's own value based on what others are willing to pay. If paying this higher wage is forced on the economy, it is like putting an obstacle in way of achieving the ultimate end, which is accomplishing the task the wage is compensating for.
The 'extra' money may benefit the MW employee to some degree, but prices will rise to accommodate the higher payroll costs nationally anyways. The whole economy will become less efficient ultimately hurting everyone including the employee now making $15 an hour.

Your argument hinges on the idea that business works on the cutting edge of efficiency, which is plainly false.

<em>I'm not sure where I claimed that, I just read it over again. What part of my post are you talking about exactly? I am going to address the payroll costs since that's what you seem to be focusing on below.

If raising the minimum wage means companies will have no other option than to raise their prices just to stay afloat,?

I'm not saying that they'll have no other option. And there are plenty of ways to go about rearranging the business to compensate. That really isn't the point though. The money is coming from somewhere is all. Either someone is paying more for something or someone else is getting paid less, or someone is losing a job. Regardless you have to see the economy as a whole. Wealth is only coming from production one way or another, we always want to be paying less or laboring less for the same or better results. The end goal is abundance or at least to satisfy our demands with the least possible effort.


then why are some people making millions and billions of dollars in salary and bonuses?

Because that is the market value in our current distorted system. I don't like the idea of it either. I don't like to see some people living off the system, living an outlandish over the top lifestyle while many people struggle to pay their bills. I bet it bothers me more than it bothers you!

Are these people accepting the lowest possible wage for the value they contribute?

They are accepting the job that is the most attractive at the time. The value they bring to the company should be equal to their salary, if not they can still get fired, it comes down to how much the board is willing to pay.

Would they stop working if they were offered less?

Maybe, maybe not, it is only going to be up them and so it's impossible to say for sure.
Maybe they don't need to work anymore, maybe they can get a better offer, maybe anything.


Is their contribution to the company precisely equal to their wage? The answer is no, to all of these questions.


Again there is no definitive answer to this question. Maybe they are, or not.


: Employers do not offer wages based on economic theory. They offer what they can get away with. If they can't afford to hire someone at a certain wage, then they won't hire anyone. If they can pay someone less than what they contribute to the company profit, then that profit becomes theirs to spend as they see fit.

The statements you made right after "Employers do not offer wages based on economic theory" all in fact support economic theory. All relate to supply and demand.


There is nothing holding them to peak efficiency in its use. Competition exists, but that only pushes so far as their competition is willing to go.

Exactly, "competition exists, but that only pushes so far as their competition is willing to go." That is what's holding them to, not so much peak efficiency, but as much is necessary to stay competitive. And of course that is not to say that will always happen either. That is only what is required to stay in business, some people may be overachievers clobbering their competition, or failing to compete and going bankrupt.


Often times this takes a dark turn, where the only way to compete is to cut costs in every way possible to match prices by reducing worker pay and safety measures; not because of economic realities, but because someone else does it and has enough money to get away with it until their competition folds.


That is possible yes, but that may not be the best way to become successful in business. Or really, it isn't. Reducing pay and safety measures does not guarantee success. Not only does it not guarantee success, but risks complete failure.


The economy is inefficient because of the wage inequality we see today.

That is not the case. I would call it a symptom. Inefficiencies are only the obstacles that come in between you and your goal. Inequality I don't see as being an obstacle in the way, I see the obstacle as the barriers of entry for competition or other tax, subsidies, or regulations in the favor of the big corporations that are paying these huge salaries. It is a symptom, huge profits should be a signal to the market that there is room to undercut the competition, so why aren't they? Big business lobbies the government, and small business can't.

The more money that languishes in foreign bank accounts and luxury assets, the less gets circulated through the system. The decisions of employers to pay themselves exorbitant wages without regard to the actual value they bring to the table is far more detrimental to the economy than a wage hike for the low-end employees that businesses can't function without.


http://www.aol.com...

http://www.forbes.com...
ZenBear
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2016 4:50:39 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/13/2016 10:28:09 PM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
I'm not sure where I claimed that, I just read it over again. What part of my post are you talking about exactly? I am going to address the payroll costs since that's what you seem to be focusing on below.

I'm not saying that they'll have no other option. And there are plenty of ways to go about rearranging the business to compensate. That really isn't the point though. The money is coming from somewhere is all. Either someone is paying more for something or someone else is getting paid less, or someone is losing a job. Regardless you have to see the economy as a whole. Wealth is only coming from production one way or another, we always want to be paying less or laboring less for the same or better results. The end goal is abundance or at least to satisfy our demands with the least possible effort.

You didn't say it, and you don't seem to understand it, but it's true. The idea that the entire economy will be damaged by paying a higher minimum wage is only true if doing so would be unsustainable because there simply isn't any excess money with which to pay them. On the contrary, there is an enormous amount of money lying around in the bank accounts of executives whose actual contribution to the success of their company, and the economy, is a minuscule fraction of their compensation. You say the value of labor should be determined by supply and demand, but supply and demand is not deciding the wages of the top executives; they are deciding it for themselves.

then why are some people making millions and billions of dollars in salary and bonuses?

Because that is the market value in our current distorted system. I don't like the idea of it either. I don't like to see some people living off the system, living an outlandish over the top lifestyle while many people struggle to pay their bills. I bet it bothers me more than it bothers you!

An unsubstantiated claim at the end, there. I don't know why you keep making those. That being said, we're actually more or less on the same side, but divided on solutions.

Are these people accepting the lowest possible wage for the value they contribute?

They are accepting the job that is the most attractive at the time. The value they bring to the company should be equal to their salary, if not they can still get fired, it comes down to how much the board is willing to pay.

Except everyone on the board is getting inflated wages, so the point of reference is skewed.

Again there is no definitive answer to this question. Maybe they are, or not.

I disagree. It is abundantly clear that some executives are paid well beyond what they are due. Just like calculating a livable wage, it's not as difficult as you think.

The statements you made right after "Employers do not offer wages based on economic theory" all in fact support economic theory. All relate to supply and demand.

Yet supply and demand does not account for the wages of the employers.

That is possible yes, but that may not be the best way to become successful in business. Or really, it isn't. Reducing pay and safety measures does not guarantee success. Not only does it not guarantee success, but risks complete failure.

As I stated in the other thread, just because the business fails doesn't mean the ones who tanked it will lose anything. They will make a cozy little golden parachute for themselves and start a new business while everyone they employed, people who worked hard to make the company work and staked their livelihoods on it, are SOL.

That is not the case. I would call it a symptom. Inefficiencies are only the obstacles that come in between you and your goal. Inequality I don't see as being an obstacle in the way, I see the obstacle as the barriers of entry for competition or other tax, subsidies, or regulations in the favor of the big corporations that are paying these huge salaries. It is a symptom, huge profits should be a signal to the market that there is room to undercut the competition, so why aren't they? Big business lobbies the government, and small business can't.

Fair point. You are right that big business lobbying government is a serious issue, but you and I are on opposition over whether government regulations can be fixed. Calling inequality a symptom is right from a certain perspective -- it is caused by other factors -- but is it also in and of itself a cause for inefficiency. As I stated below, income inequality keeps a massive amount of money out of circulation, which harms small business because there aren't enough customers who can afford their goods and services. Thus, big business wins by outlasting small business until they go under and now customers have to deal with them and take whatever prices are given.

The more money that languishes in foreign bank accounts and luxury assets, the less gets circulated through the system. The decisions of employers to pay themselves exorbitant wages without regard to the actual value they bring to the table is far more detrimental to the economy than a wage hike for the low-end employees that businesses can't function without.


http://www.aol.com...

http://www.forbes.com...

Did you have anything to say about this last part? I wonder if you're running out of Characters in your posts because you don't trim down the quotes.

One point I will concede: there are too many regulations strangling small business. I know second hand, through dealings with my father who has owned various businesses since he was 21, and my former boss who has started up his own plumbing company, that the barrier of entry is too steep. That is a problem that can be solved by cutting some regulations and revamping others, but the idea that all government regulations should be removed is beyond the pale.
BillSPrestonEsq
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2016 7:41:33 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/8/2016 4:50:39 PM, ZenBear wrote:
At 6/13/2016 10:28:09 PM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:

You didn't say it, and you don't seem to understand it, but it's true. The idea that the entire economy will be damaged by paying a higher minimum wage is only true if doing so would be unsustainable because there simply isn't any excess money with which to pay them. On the contrary, there is an enormous amount of money lying around in the bank accounts of executives whose actual contribution to the success of their company, and the economy, is a minuscule fraction of their compensation. You say the value of labor should be determined by supply and demand, but supply and demand is not deciding the wages of the top executives; they are deciding it for themselves.


No they're not decided for themselves, it is supply and demand again. Why do you think they make so much money? Because they can! That is it, the reason they can is because they have no competition.

They are accepting the job that is the most attractive at the time. The value they bring to the company should be equal to their salary, if not they can still get fired, it comes down to how much the board is willing to pay.

Except everyone on the board is getting inflated wages, so the point of reference is skewed.


Again supply and demand, and again, the reason is either, no one is competing, or no one can legally compete. I side with the latter.

As I stated in the other thread, just because the business fails doesn't mean the ones who tanked it will lose anything. They will make a cozy little golden parachute for themselves and start a new business while everyone they employed, people who worked hard to make the company work and staked their livelihoods on it, are SOL.


And many times that is because the law has sided with the rich and powerful because we have allowed the law to be more than defense against the initiation of force. Read "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat to see where I stand on that one. I can't say I have disagreed with a single thing the man has wrote and I have read 90% of his work.
The law should actually punish fraud and not reward it, e.g. bailouts.


Fair point. You are right that big business lobbying government is a serious issue, but you and I are on opposition over whether government regulations can be fixed. Calling inequality a symptom is right from a certain perspective -- it is caused by other factors -- but is it also in and of itself a cause for inefficiency. As I stated below, income inequality keeps a massive amount of money out of circulation, which harms small business because there aren't enough customers who can afford their goods and services. Thus, big business wins by outlasting small business until they go under and now customers have to deal with them and take whatever prices are given.


Spending doesn't create wealth, only production. So money sitting in a bank is not bad for the economy. Money being loaned out for overpriced mortgages at no benefit to the demand deposit account holders isn't good (the legal fraud of the 10% reserve requirement), but 'hoarding' is not necessarily bad. In our debt based economy hoarding can be bad because it can create a deflationary spiral. But the FED can just create the same downward spiral by tightening credit, in my opinion, the largest contributor to the boom and bust cycle. And yes the combination of the FED business cycle and corrupt regulators does exactly as you described in your last sentence, in my opinion.

The more money that languishes in foreign bank accounts and luxury assets, the less gets circulated through the system. The decisions of employers to pay themselves exorbitant wages without regard to the actual value they bring to the table is far more detrimental to the economy than a wage hike for the low-end employees that businesses can't function without.


http://www.aol.com...

http://www.forbes.com...

Did you have anything to say about this last part? I wonder if you're running out of Characters in your posts because you don't trim down the quotes.


I just think my response would be redundant. I realize many CEO's are overpaid. High profits as I mentioned are a signal to the market saying that whatever good or service being provided can be provided much cheaper. The problem is lack of competition, and that's it. The answer is to get rid of the barriers of entry, not force more unjust laws on the population by forcing everyone to pay more than they should for unskilled labor, That kind of thinking needs to be taken right out of the equation.
kmhunt
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 10:42:26 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
You didn't say it, and you don't seem to understand it, but it's true. The idea that the entire economy will be damaged by paying a higher minimum wage is only true if doing so would be unsustainable because there simply isn't any excess money with which to pay them. On the contrary, there is an enormous amount of money lying around in the bank accounts of executives whose actual contribution to the success of their company, and the economy, is a minuscule fraction of their compensation. You say the value of labor should be determined by supply and demand, but supply and demand is not deciding the wages of the top executives; they are deciding it for themselves.

You are not taking into consideration small businesses with this argument. The reason big businesses are big businesses is because of economies of scale which would allow them to absorb additional labor costs while many small businesses would be forced to close. Now we are back at square one with higher wages but less people working and less competition from industries. What has history shown when there is little to no competition for monopolies?
migmag
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 8:39:31 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Of course your wrong, it's ABOUT TIME we raise the minimum wage to a LIVING WAGE: At 5/5/2016 12:04:43 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/5/2016 3:12:39 AM, harrytruman wrote:
Henry Ford payed his workers 5$ a day, adapted to inflation, 5$ in 1914 is worth 119$ today, at a 8 hour shift, this means that workers would be payed 15$ a hour, if Henry Ford could do it in 1914, with far less income for his company than corporations today, why is it that they can't afford it?

I think this is a really silly comparison, lol.

First, you can't possibly compare 1914 to 2016. The income tax didn't even exist until 1913, and even then it was something like 2% or 3%. Obviously that's a substantial cost to doing business, as is providing healthcare, pensions, complying with regulations, etc.

Second, we live in a globalized economy, so surely there are implications if companies are able to outsource to other countries for the purpose of cheap labor. Of course, most minimum-wage jobs -- service sector, restaurants, etc. -- are non-exportable, so this is probably a less significant reason, but the broader subject of wages (for even, say, companies that pay slightly above the minimum wage, but not quite a "living wage") is obviously crucial to the discussion of global competitiveness insofar as paying out wages makes it nearly impossible to compete in a global marketplace, and as a result leads to substituting capital for labor or just flat-out laying people off and downsizing.

Third, there's a HUGE difference between an economy-wide minimum wage and the wage rates for a specific company. Ford's story is a textbook example of the efficiency wage hypothesis -- higher wages feed through to higher productivity, more employee discipline, higher morale, etc. and that effectively "pays for" the wage hike -- but it's evidence of the existence of a considerable amount of untapped efficiencies: eventually, we hit the point of diminishing returns. I suspect we're far closer to that point today in a much larger, globalized economy than we were back in 1914.

Again, maybe a company like Ford or Walmart or Costco or what have you could afford to pay $15. But that need not mean that EVERY company could follow suit. If anything, it would likely create barriers to entry for start-ups without these kinds of untapped efficiencies, which would grant even more monopoly power to retail giants like Walmart. Obviously that's not the least bit desirable.

But the main story around $15 is that we have absolutely no precedent for it. We have no real reason to argue one way or the other as to whether it would actually work, because the research we have on the minimum wage doesn't cover such a large increase or such a large minimum relative to the median wage (most work is about 50-60% of the median wage, which is why I'd be much more likely to support a $12 minimum wage). It's incredibly untested and there are other alternatives, like the earned income tax credit, that don't have these potential drawbacks that we could use to cover for some of the immense risks of a higher minimum wage.
We need to TRY a LIVING WAGE for the first time in this country's history!
migmag
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 8:41:37 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
You're the one not taking facts into consideration, the Minimum Wage is ALWAYS LOWER for SMALL businesses. $15/hour would be for BIG businesses and LARGE corporations., : At 7/10/2016 10:42:26 PM, kmhunt wrote:
You didn't say it, and you don't seem to understand it, but it's true. The idea that the entire economy will be damaged by paying a higher minimum wage is only true if doing so would be unsustainable because there simply isn't any excess money with which to pay them. On the contrary, there is an enormous amount of money lying around in the bank accounts of executives whose actual contribution to the success of their company, and the economy, is a minuscule fraction of their compensation. You say the value of labor should be determined by supply and demand, but supply and demand is not deciding the wages of the top executives; they are deciding it for themselves.

You are not taking into consideration small businesses with this argument. The reason big businesses are big businesses is because of economies of scale which would allow them to absorb additional labor costs while many small businesses would be forced to close. Now we are back at square one with higher wages but less people working and less competition from industries. What has history shown when there is little to no competition for monopolies?

Everyone who knows politics knows the minimum wage for SMALL businesses is ALWAYS ALOT LOWER.
migmag
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 8:44:39 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
FIRST of all, EVERYONE has skills, operating a cash register IS a skill. Having GOOD interpersonal skills to interact with customers IS A SKILL
At 7/8/2016 7:41:33 PM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 7/8/2016 4:50:39 PM, ZenBear wrote:
At 6/13/2016 10:28:09 PM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:

You didn't say it, and you don't seem to understand it, but it's true. The idea that the entire economy will be damaged by paying a higher minimum wage is only true if doing so would be unsustainable because there simply isn't any excess money with which to pay them. On the contrary, there is an enormous amount of money lying around in the bank accounts of executives whose actual contribution to the success of their company, and the economy, is a minuscule fraction of their compensation. You say the value of labor should be determined by supply and demand, but supply and demand is not deciding the wages of the top executives; they are deciding it for themselves.


No they're not decided for themselves, it is supply and demand again. Why do you think they make so much money? Because they can! That is it, the reason they can is because they have no competition.


They are accepting the job that is the most attractive at the time. The value they bring to the company should be equal to their salary, if not they can still get fired, it comes down to how much the board is willing to pay.

Except everyone on the board is getting inflated wages, so the point of reference is skewed.


Again supply and demand, and again, the reason is either, no one is competing, or no one can legally compete. I side with the latter.

As I stated in the other thread, just because the business fails doesn't mean the ones who tanked it will lose anything. They will make a cozy little golden parachute for themselves and start a new business while everyone they employed, people who worked hard to make the company work and staked their livelihoods on it, are SOL.


And many times that is because the law has sided with the rich and powerful because we have allowed the law to be more than defense against the initiation of force. Read "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat to see where I stand on that one. I can't say I have disagreed with a single thing the man has wrote and I have read 90% of his work.
The law should actually punish fraud and not reward it, e.g. bailouts.


Fair point. You are right that big business lobbying government is a serious issue, but you and I are on opposition over whether government regulations can be fixed. Calling inequality a symptom is right from a certain perspective -- it is caused by other factors -- but is it also in and of itself a cause for inefficiency. As I stated below, income inequality keeps a massive amount of money out of circulation, which harms small business because there aren't enough customers who can afford their goods and services. Thus, big business wins by outlasting small business until they go under and now customers have to deal with them and take whatever prices are given.


Spending doesn't create wealth, only production. So money sitting in a bank is not bad for the economy. Money being loaned out for overpriced mortgages at no benefit to the demand deposit account holders isn't good (the legal fraud of the 10% reserve requirement), but 'hoarding' is not necessarily bad. In our debt based economy hoarding can be bad because it can create a deflationary spiral. But the FED can just create the same downward spiral by tightening credit, in my opinion, the largest contributor to the boom and bust cycle. And yes the combination of the FED business cycle and corrupt regulators does exactly as you described in your last sentence, in my opinion.

The more money that languishes in foreign bank accounts and luxury assets, the less gets circulated through the system. The decisions of employers to pay themselves exorbitant wages without regard to the actual value they bring to the table is far more detrimental to the economy than a wage hike for the low-end employees that businesses can't function without.


http://www.aol.com...

http://www.forbes.com...

Did you have anything to say about this last part? I wonder if you're running out of Characters in your posts because you don't trim down the quotes.


I just think my response would be redundant. I realize many CEO's are overpaid. High profits as I mentioned are a signal to the market saying that whatever good or service being provided can be provided much cheaper. The problem is lack of competition, and that's it. The answer is to get rid of the barriers of entry, not force more unjust laws on the population by forcing everyone to pay more than they should for unskilled labor, That kind of thinking needs to be taken right out of the equation.
That's just it you ARENT thinking if you want to believe entry level employees are "unskilled', because that is NOT true, we ALL have skills and EVERY DESERVES to be paid a LIVING WAGE! After all, the entry level employees ARE THE FACE of the company
migmag
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 8:49:23 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Why is it that YOU REPUBLICANS ONLY care about MONEY and NEVER care about PEOPLE?
At 6/13/2016 10:28:09 PM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 6/13/2016 4:33:38 AM, ZenBear wrote:
At 6/12/2016 11:41:26 PM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
I really doubt wages would change much if at all. It just isn't worth it to most people, especially when there is welfare. I think some new jobs would be created, but mostly entry level very low skilled employees, which is the idea.
No minimum wage is better for the economy for a couple reasons. if someone is willing to work for$ 7.00 instead of $7.25, now they can, and if they are willing it must be to their benefit. Is someone going to fuss over the 25 cents? Probably not, but it's beside the point, labor should find it's own value based on supply and demand.
It is a drain on the economy to pay more for a good or service than another is willing to offer for it.
Low paying jobs are meant to be entry level jobs, a stepping stone towards a career, not to support a family. The creation of a $15 minimum wage is to completely ignore that labor like any other commodity should be able to find it's own value based on what others are willing to pay. If paying this higher wage is forced on the economy, it is like putting an obstacle in way of achieving the ultimate end, which is accomplishing the task the wage is compensating for.
The 'extra' money may benefit the MW employee to some degree, but prices will rise to accommodate the higher payroll costs nationally anyways. The whole economy will become less efficient ultimately hurting everyone including the employee now making $15 an hour.

Your argument hinges on the idea that business works on the cutting edge of efficiency, which is plainly false.

<em>I'm not sure where I claimed that, I just read it over again. What part of my post are you talking about exactly? I am going to address the payroll costs since that's what you seem to be focusing on below.

If raising the minimum wage means companies will have no other option than to raise their prices just to stay afloat,?

I'm not saying that they'll have no other option. And there are plenty of ways to go about rearranging the business to compensate. That really isn't the point though. The money is coming from somewhere is all. Either someone is paying more for something or someone else is getting paid less, or someone is losing a job. Regardless you have to see the economy as a whole. Wealth is only coming from production one way or another, we always want to be paying less or laboring less for the same or better results. The end goal is abundance or at least to satisfy our demands with the least possible effort.


then why are some people making millions and billions of dollars in salary and bonuses?

Because that is the market value in our current distorted system. I don't like the idea of it either. I don't like to see some people living off the system, living an outlandish over the top lifestyle while many people struggle to pay their bills. I bet it bothers me more than it bothers you!

Are these people accepting the lowest possible wage for the value they contribute?

They are accepting the job that is the most attractive at the time. The value they bring to the company should be equal to their salary, if not they can still get fired, it comes down to how much the board is willing to pay.

Would they stop working if they were offered less?

Maybe, maybe not, it is only going to be up them and so it's impossible to say for sure.
Maybe they don't need to work anymore, maybe they can get a better offer, maybe anything.


Is their contribution to the company precisely equal to their wage? The answer is no, to all of these questions.


Again there is no definitive answer to this question. Maybe they are, or not.


: Employers do not offer wages based on economic theory. They offer what they can get away with. If they can't afford to hire someone at a certain wage, then they won't hire anyone. If they can pay someone less than what they contribute to the company profit, then that profit becomes theirs to spend as they see fit.

The statements you made right after "Employers do not offer wages based on economic theory" all in fact support economic theory. All relate to supply and demand.


There is nothing holding them to peak efficiency in its use. Competition exists, but that only pushes so far as their competition is willing to go.

Exactly, "competition exists, but that only pushes so far as their competition is willing to go." That is what's holding them to, not so much peak efficiency, but as much is necessary to stay competitive. And of course that is not to say that will always happen either. That is only what is required to stay in business, some people may be overachievers clobbering their competition, or failing to compete and going bankrupt.


Often times this takes a dark turn, where the only way to compete is to cut costs in every way possible to match prices by reducing worker pay and safety measures; not because of economic realities, but because someone else does it and has enough money to get away with it until their competition folds.


That is possible yes, but that may not be the best way to become successful in business. Or really, it isn't. Reducing pay and safety measures does not guarantee success. Not only does it not guarantee success, but risks complete failure.


The economy is inefficient because of the wage inequality we see today.

That is not the case. I would call it a symptom. Inefficiencies are only the obstacles that come in between you and your goal. Inequality I don't see as being an obstacle in the way, I see the obstacle as the barriers of entry for competition or other tax, subsidies, or regulations in the favor of the big corporations that are paying these huge salaries. It is a symptom, huge profits should be a signal to the market that there is room to undercut the competition, so why aren't they? Big business lobbies the government, and small business can't.

The more money that languishes in foreign bank accounts and luxury assets, the less gets circulated through the system. The decisions of employers to pay themselves exorbitant wages without regard to the actual value they bring to the table is far more detrimental to the economy than a wage hike for the low-end employees that businesses can't function without.


http://www.aol.com...

http://www.forbes.com...

EVERYONE DESERVES a LIVING wage, and 80% of Americans think that living wage is ATLEAST $11/hour, end of story
migmag
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 8:51:19 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Don't you DARE say "there's welfare" THAT is NOT available to ANY adult UNLESS they have a DEPENDENT child in the home, and THEN it is FOR THE CHILDS benefit.
At 6/12/2016 11:41:26 PM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 6/11/2016 6:48:44 AM, ZenBear wrote:
At 6/5/2016 2:21:56 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
It is not a question of can they afford it, but does the market require them to do so. The answer is no. By raising the minimum wage, all you will do is increase unemployment and cause inflation. The best thing to do economically is abolish it.

What happens when you abolish the minimum wage? Do employers start offering low pay jobs en masse? Now you have low unemployment, congrats. Those employed people can't live off of their wages, so they have to seek government aid. They are spending their time, a strictly limited resource, for meager gain. School is still prohibitively expensive. Many people will still need cars to get to work, phones and internet to stay in contact with work, health care to stay fit for work (maybe government granted, maybe not), etc. Cost of living negates the benefit of employment. Am I wrong? What's the net gain here?

I really doubt wages would change much if at all. It just isn't worth it to most people, especially when there is welfare. I think some new jobs would be created, but mostly entry level very low skilled employees, which is the idea.
No minimum wage is better for the economy for a couple reasons. if someone is willing to work for$ 7.00 instead of $7.25, now they can, and if they are willing it must be to their benefit. Is someone going to fuss over the 25 cents? Probably not, but it's beside the point, labor should find it's own value based on supply and demand.
It is a drain on the economy to pay more for a good or service than another is willing to offer for it.
Low paying jobs are meant to be entry level jobs, a stepping stone towards a career, not to support a family. The creation of a $15 minimum wage is to completely ignore that labor like any other commodity should be able to find it's own value based on what others are willing to pay. If paying this higher wage is forced on the economy, it is like putting an obstacle in way of achieving the ultimate end, which is accomplishing the task the wage is compensating for.
The 'extra' money may benefit the MW employee to some degree, but prices will rise to accommodate the higher payroll costs nationally anyways. The whole economy will become less efficient ultimately hurting everyone including the employee now making $15 an hour.

Why do you Republican FAIL to mention that MOST people are NOT eligible for Food Stamps and almost NO ONE is eligible for Welfare. Stop the lies, I know that's what you're good at
migmag
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 8:53:45 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Namecalling THAT is mature and useful, NOT!
At 5/18/2016 7:05:26 PM, Rukado wrote:
At 5/5/2016 3:12:39 AM, harrytruman wrote:
Henry Ford payed his workers 5$ a day, adapted to inflation, 5$ in 1914 is worth 119$ today, at a 8 hour shift, this means that workers would be payed 15$ a hour, if Henry Ford could do it in 1914, with far less income for his company than corporations today, why is it that they can't afford it?

You point to to Ford to show us how nicely he paid people when the government was practically non-existent to his concerns. And, you draw from that the need for more government, rather than less? Idiot.

The person you are talking to here is a REPUBLICAN anyway, so I don't know why he's acting as if he's in fact of $15/hour wage, because he's not. However, we NEED ATLEAST a $11/hour minimum wage NOW! People are DYING and going BANKRUPT because employers are SEVERELY UNDER paying their employees