Website Feedback
Closed Threads
IRC Web ChatTeamSpeak 3 (83 users)
Active: 9702 users | |
|
| HunterX11 United States. May 10 2012 02:59. Posts 872 | Profile # |
On May 09 2012 22:03 simmion wrote:
Okay, so let's get rid of minimum wage. then you can pay unskilled labor $1.00 /hr.
I never understand why someone get's upset when they have no skills and don't make as much as people who have skills. That's the problem with society as a whole now a days, everyone wants more output for less input.
Because getting skills is expenisve? And even then there is a good chance you won't be able to find work, but will instead just be further in debt? People want to make a living, and whether you think they have a right to be productive members of society or not, sooner or later, if you deny sustinence to them, they will take it by force. It was not leftists who invented the welfare state, after all, but conservatives like Bismarck. In the long term it is even in the best interests of the rich not to crush the poor too much. |
| | Try using both Irradiate and Defensive Matrix on an Overlord. It looks pretty neat. |
|
|
| DuckS United States. May 10 2012 03:46. Posts 806 | Profile # |
+ Show Spoiler +[QUOTE] On May 09 2012 11:44 ixi.genocide wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
On May 09 2012 11:01 DuckS wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 09 2012 09:39 ixi.genocide wrote:
On May 09 2012 04:51 Rassy wrote:
So you see, skilled labourers benefit from keeping unskilled labourers out of the work force. They parasitically profit from the misfortune of others through this policy.
No this is false.
Say minimum wage at mc donalds is 5/hour and 2 people come for the job 2 flip burgers.
1 is an unskilled worker and 2 is a high educated person who cant find a job on his own level and therefor tries to get anny job.
Mc donalds will choose the 2nd person off course and if there was no minimum wage they would still choose the 2nd person.
You can argue that the first person would be willing to work for 1/hour in the end but person 2 will as well if his life depends on it.
And his life does depend on it else he would not be trying to get that job in the first place.
Even at 5 he is already accepting way lower then what he is worth.
Since jobs are more scarce then labour specially at the lower levels,minimum wage is there to protect the workers against the somewhat monopoly the corporations have on jobs.
Minimumwage is the only thing that stands between capitalism and a marxistic revolution.
It is there to prevent the greedy entrepeneurs from completely exploiting the workforce up till the point they will revolt.
The minimum wage has also manny bad sides though.
(btw i agree that op is a troll)
Minimum wage is part of the process to a marxist revolution. First of all COMMUNISM DOESN'T WORK AT ALL. over 70 million people died after china became a communist nation and they died of famine. U.S was built on entrepreneurs and the 16th amendment crushed that. Combine that with the gold standard being lifted, great new deal/II and you have the current situation we are in. 15.7 Trillion dollar deficit... growing at 1.3 trillion per year. now you add on the healthcare mandate and we are even farther in the hole.
Yes, the minimum wage does help the social elite to control the lower class. Communism on a mass scale doesn't work, It works well with a small group of people but it doesn't work en masse. it is literally impossible for communism on a mass scale to not corrupt. You are handing over all of the power of the people to a government entity and telling them to control you, it is no better than a monarchy.
I said I didn't support it, and wasn't stating whether it worked or not. I understand the flaws of communism fully.
If you are on the gold standard you cannot print money for government spending, The rate of inflation is also a lot less than it is now, the 16th amendment imposed income taxes and I was mainly referring it to the tax system that supports big businesses such as the car industry. The new deal and great new deal II added a lot of government programs that are literally drowning us. Outside of the 16 amendment (which is just a creep of gov power) these all are partial reasons to why we are in such high DEFICIT, not debt; Our total debt is 57 trillion and that isn't so much of a problem. the real problem is that we spend 1.3 trillion more than we have alotted our government in the first place and now we are at almost a 16 trillion dollar deficit. In 3.5 years we have spent almost 13 trillion, and Bush was a fucking disaster as well. Just about the only thing he did right was bail out the banks, (to be honest, one of his worst policies was the "No child left behind", most of my family is in teaching and the sacrafices made to hit test scores is simply rediculous). Yes I would rather have a small federal goverment and let the states control themselves for the most part.
I said Deficit bro... not debt.
Yes, which caused all of the confusion. We are in a 15 trillion dollar debt, not deficit.
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
The gold standard helped keep inflation down and limited the amount of money that the FED could print. The Keynesian system works by using government spending to increase employment but that really isn't needed in a free market. The main problem with Keynesian economics is the bubbles from government interference are a lot bigger swings than the ebb and flow of Supply/demand.
We aren't in a free-market, though. We're in a mixed market. And for as long as we'll need government (which, we do need), we will always be in a mixed market.
I'm not sure how you think that increased government taxes would hinder the Consumer product safety commission or the FDA or prevent the judicial system from working properly, or even better the free market taking the exploding computer into account. I'm pretty sure the FDA couldn't do shit about the Jack's burger fiasco. But they did lose a lot of money from being sued and people not eating at their restaurants. The 16th amendment was broadly worded and taxes were never supposed to be more than 7% GDP but they are now in the range of 15-20% and that is only calculating up to 2005...
I never said I thought that, nor do I think that. Your juxtaposition of things you said leading to our current debt (new deals, 16th amendment, gold standard) makes it seem like you assume that increased government taxes puts us in the debt, which, obviously couldn't be the case. I also never said that increased taxes would hinder govt programs, either. And, your jab at the FDA in this paragraph is disheartening. They impose regulations, and businesses follow. Yes, slip-ups like this do happen. But Jack's burger being sued and people not eating at their restaurants as an example of effective free-market punishments and it "working" couldn't be the case, because, as moral people, we don't put that punishment as a price for hurting/killing people - we want to prevent it, which is what the FDA is there for.
I'm sorry to make this leap but I think you lack reading comprehension. I'm fine with people making assumptions about economic policies but... you should make sure to reread what you are responding to. It seems that you are twisting what I am saying and a conversation about the possibilities of unemployment numbers, which is closely related to the minimum wage btw, has turned into me writing an essay on the problems with government creep. As for the minimum wage, if you abolished it right now the main thing that would happen is new jobs would open up for less than minimum wage and those jobs would be filled by the 80 million unemployed. The economy would then boom because of increased productivity.
Are you certain it's my reading comprehension? I'll go ahead and say that yes, my tone did come off as hostile, and perhaps not-wanting-to-work-with, and condescending. But you should at least try to read the paragraph I quoted again. It was heavily condensed, full of fallacies, and made strange conclusions that would make one think that you were either a) trolling or b) just not informed on the subjects/field. I'll meet you half way and say it was my lack of comprehension, but also your lack of expression, for the sake of a good debate. Deal?
Now, on the minimum wage, I completely disagree with removing it. Yes, new jobs would open up, but then you have people making barely anything to get by. In fact, it's already hard to get by with minimum wage. What you'll see happen is a wage reduction of already-had entry-level jobs (assuming there is no contracts, usually there isn't), and a bunch of new jobs with little pay. This does a couple of things. 1) The aggregate demand barely increases or doesn't increase at all. People purchase less and save less with less wages, and you have to consider, business' prices won't drive down over-night to adjust to this new level of pay. 2) Continuing on with the logic of business' prices, it won't drive down too much, as jobs above entry-level tend to have downward inflexible wage rates. So, you have a portion of the population (under minimum-wage) making no significant wages, while the other portion of the population are making the same wages/rates they were before-hand, meaning you have fixed wages that can already afford goods and services, but could then afford more if the prices tried to drop to accommodate for the now lower-making class, which would just drive up the price of goods and services or keep it stable.
I doubt the productivity would change enough for anything to matter. The amount of people employed changed, but that same amount of people receive less wages or start out with pretty low wages. More people working, but for next-to-nothing, compared to today's prices. The only productive leap would be that businesses gain more money to -potentially- invest, but, because you're paying more people (80 mil* entry level wages~) businesses probably won't benefit that much either. You're using the same amount of money, but just allocating it differently. Businesses are only going to hire as many people they need at x-amount of wages, nothing more. They aren't going to pay more money than they already are now for positions that are already doing fine.
Last edit: 2012-05-10 04:31:08 |
| | "You foiled us this time Americans, but your liberty will not protect your Marilyn Monroe forever - our Queen must FEED!" - Deleuze |
|
|
| WackaAlpaca Canada. May 10 2012 04:18. Posts 204 | Profile # |
"One of the groups that advocate for the minimum wage is labour unions. They pretend to do so out of some sort of working class soldiarity, but the truth is there is a very strong economic motivation for labour unions to advocate for a minimum wage (and for prohibitions on young adults working). Let's presume a skilled worker can produce 4x as much as an unskilled worker, and the market wage for this skilled worker is $32 / hr. If the minimum wage is $10 the unskilled labourer is not econmically competitive with the skilled woker. On the other hand if the unskilled labourer can work for $7 then it is a better deal for the employer to hire the unskilled labourers (7 * 4 = 28, or a net savings of $4 per hour)."
This is simply not true.
You are ignoring a massive amount of expense that accompanies every single employee a company takes on.
2 workers at half wage is not the same as 1 working at full wage. |
| |
|
| Vega62a May 10 2012 05:47. Posts 702 | Profile Blog # |
On May 09 2012 23:03 Cutlery wrote:
tldr: if you are homeless, blame it on the minimum wage, and not the booze.
Linking minimum wage to unemployment. accurate, but isn't that inaccurate either. But where is the line between work and slavery? If you abolish minimum wage, what does the work force have left?
Should these be loopholes added to the current laws? So that if you are unable to get a job, and maybe are collecting social security, you can go apply for any work at a much lower hourly rate and get ahead of the competition that way?
In norway we kinda have that. If you are out of work and drunk half the time and can't get a job, or a teenager with few skills, government will pay your salary, so your employer can hire you for free for 6 months or a year or so.
I do rather like that idea, and I support the general notion of work-based welfare (i.e. the government finds you a job or pays somebody to hire you) for those who are capable of working but cannot find a job. Including work with government-aided income gives those who are attempting to get back into the workforce something to put on their resumes, (someone who is out of work for 6 months or more consecutively becomes nearly unemployable) and, frankly, a hell of a lot more personal dignity. It's obviously not black and white (a lot of people who are unemployed are burdened with mental problems, and should not be forced to work when they could be getting better) but it's better than letting their work skills atrophy.
The problem with the argument that the minimum wage causes job losses is similar to the problem with the argument that unions cause job losses. It's true, but not in the way people think it is. Of course providing basic worker protections to ensure that companies don't exploit the destitute and the desperate is going to lead to companies hiring fewer people. Think of it this way - a company could hire seven people at a dollar a day instead of one person at seven dollars a day. What a great company! They just hired seven people! But these workers are not actually having their quality of life improved. It's not doing anything to reduce poverty and homelessness, which are the reasons that we fear unemployment. Just boosting employment numbers is worthless unless people are gainfully employed. Last edit: 2012-05-10 05:48:10 |
| | Content of my posts reflects only my personal opinions, and not those of any employer or subsidiary |
|
|
| ixi.genocide United States. May 10 2012 06:05. Posts 968 | Profile Blog # |
On May 10 2012 03:46 DuckS wrote:I said Deficit bro... not debt.Yes, which caused all of the confusion. We are in a 15 trillion dollar debt, not deficit. http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/http://www.usdebtclock.org/you are right, in my hasty response I put the 15 trillion as debt when the deficit is 1.3 trillion and the national debt is 15.7 trillion. the 1.3 trillion deficit which is growing the national debt is a problem.We aren't in a free-market, though. We're in a mixed market. And for as long as we'll need government (which, we do need), we will always be in a mixed market.
There are a few things that we need the government for in a market, the main thing is the prevention of monopolies and safe labor laws. I never said I thought that, nor do I think that. Your juxtaposition of things you said leading to our current debt (new deals, 16th amendment, gold standard) makes it seem like you assume that increased government taxes puts us in the debt, which, obviously couldn't be the case. I also never said that increased taxes would hinder govt programs, either. And, your jab at the FDA in this paragraph is disheartening. They impose regulations, and businesses follow. Yes, slip-ups like this do happen. But Jack's burger being sued and people not eating at their restaurants as an example of effective free-market punishments and it "working" couldn't be the case, because, as moral people, we don't put that punishment as a price for hurting/killing people - we want to prevent it, which is what the FDA is there for. I did come across as if I dislike the FDA, I really meant to say that there isn't a way that the FDA could control that situation so the threat of losing millions of dollars should prevent companies from making mistakes such as that. Obviously the loss of life is not worth any dollar amount but it is knowing that a company can't and won't get away with killing people in any manner that I was referring to. I do think that the 16 amendment, which is not necessary for the FDA, is a big problem for government expansion, which is/was a stepping stone to the problems we are in now. Programs such as the FDA are a necessity.
Are you certain it's my reading comprehension? I'll go ahead and say that yes, my tone did come off as hostile, and perhaps not-wanting-to-work-with, and condescending. But you should at least try to read the paragraph I quoted again. It was heavily condensed, full of fallacies, and made strange conclusions that would make one think that you were either a) trolling or b) just not informed on the subjects/field. I'll meet you half way and say it was my lack of comprehension, but also your lack of expression, for the sake of a good debate. Deal? Yeah, I will agree that I jumped points and went straight to the final conclusions on some thing and i shouldn't do that. To be honest I was trying to incite conversation with the post that you were quoting. Now, on the minimum wage, I completely disagree with removing it. Yes, new jobs would open up, but then you have people making barely anything to get by. In fact, it's already hard to get by with minimum wage. What you'll see happen is a wage reduction of already-had entry-level jobs (assuming there is no contracts, usually there isn't), and a bunch of new jobs with little pay. This does a couple of things. 1) The aggregate demand barely increases or doesn't increase at all. People purchase less and save less with less wages, and you have to consider, business' prices won't drive down over-night to adjust to this new level of pay. 2) Continuing on with the logic of business' prices, it won't drive down too much, as jobs above entry-level tend to have downward inflexible wage rates. So, you have a portion of the population (under minimum-wage) making no significant wages, while the other portion of the population are making the same wages/rates they were before-hand, meaning you have fixed wages that can already afford goods and services, but could then afford more if the prices tried to drop to accommodate for the now lower-making class, which would just drive up the price of goods and services or keep it stable.
I don't really agree with removing minimum wage but I don't like the creep that has happened with it. I think that an increase in minimum wage has a direct correlation with the increase in product pricing and unemployment numbers. I do agree that it is very hard to live off of minimum wage, I currently do that and while it is just a stepping stone to a better life, I certainly won't have any fond memories of this experience. The problem with that thinking is people just assume that companies will lower the wages on their current workers, adding in the price of training a new employee coupled with the fact that the current employee is profitable for the company means that most jobs will not be renegotiated lower but new jobs will open up. If someone is looking for a job to live off of they are not going to waste their time with most jobs at $1-3 per hour because that is not sustainable. 4 is close and 5 is better, so we are really looking at moving numbers down from 9 (in WA) to 4<. I think saying that the aggregate demand barely or doesn't increase is conjecture, there is no way to prove that that statement has validity and thus is not worth arguing over; Just as easily as you can say that the aggregate demand won't go up, I can say that millions of lower paying jobs will become available. A person making 5 an hour purchases more than a person making 0. Pricing won't go down overnight but the market will correct itself in time. Once again, we can't prove significance of a position because this has never happened before, I could say that 80 million people will suddenly be making an extra 600 a month which is 4.8 trillion. I could also say that every person that wants a second job will suddenly have that opportunity because they would be profitable for the company they work at. No, if the price of milk dropped from 3 to 2 I wouldn't by more milk I would buy another product, which would spur growth of that product and boost the economy. Rates would lower on products just because the labor needed to produce those products would be less. I doubt the productivity would change enough for anything to matter. The amount of people employed changed, but that same amount of people receive less wages or start out with pretty low wages. More people working, but for next-to-nothing, compared to today's prices. The only productive leap would be that businesses gain more money to -potentially- invest, but, because you're paying more people (80 mil* entry level wages~) businesses probably won't benefit that much either. You're using the same amount of money, but just allocating it differently. Businesses are only going to hire as many people they need at x-amount of wages, nothing more. They aren't going to pay more money than they already are now for positions that are already doing fine. The key difference is that the same amount of money gives a higher return because it pays for more work. If you had a factory (let's say tire factory) and every person that you hired made you 50c per hour, how many people would you hire? I would hire as many as possible.... The entire lower class would be building tires for me.Edit: forgot to bold the last response
Last edit: 2012-05-10 06:05:53 |
|
|
 NeMeSiS3 Canada. May 10 2012 09:00. Posts 2969 | Profile Blog # |
On May 09 2012 22:29 cristo1122 wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 09 2012 19:09 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
"This is even worse amongst negro teenagers"
Am I the only one who caught this?
statistically they show the highest rate of unemployment and face the largest barrriers to getting education and employment especially in the inner city areas
... You mean "african americans" "Black people" . . . . .Statistically, "black people" show such and such, not niggers/negros/porchmonkey's you racist...
I wasn't commenting on the fact he said African americans have it worse (which isn't all that surprisng with how the system is built) but the terminology...
Oh and one point on minimum wage, it was said "increase in wage is causing rising prices" but in fact the "wage increase" is there so that with inflation everything remains balanced, 10.20 an hour in Canada is exactly the same as the old 7 dollar an hour because everything is marked up equally, of course some things change and go but generally its to balance inflationLast edit: 2012-05-10 09:03:04 |
| |
|
| alphafuzard United States. May 10 2012 11:13. Posts 1586 | Profile Blog # |
On May 09 2012 00:09 WhiteDog wrote:
The problem is that most of the people who are against the minimum wages think salaries build themselves through the market (offer and demand of work) while it's just not true.
On an individual basis perhaps not (which is why anecdotal evidence is not grounded), but over time, what else are you suggesting determines salaries? They are a product of willingness to pay of the employer. Which is determined through the market. |
| |
|
| alphafuzard United States. May 10 2012 11:33. Posts 1586 | Profile Blog # |
On May 09 2012 17:18 Talin wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 09 2012 16:49 wakefield wrote:
On May 09 2012 15:41 Talin wrote:
On May 08 2012 22:53 alphafuzard wrote:
On May 08 2012 22:15 Talin wrote:
On May 08 2012 21:59 Equity213 wrote:
Forgetting about economics entirely: I oppose the minimum wage on moral grounds.
If a man wants to work for $5 an hour and another man wants to hire him for $5 an hour, what right do you have to stop them?
Getting inbetween private agreements with a gun and a rightious attitude does not make you "good".
Can we drop the whole "with a gun / at gunpoint" and similar immature rhetoric? Way to degrade the discussion. -_- The idea is that the man wouldn't work $5 an hour if he could work for $10 an hour. Nobody wants to work below minimum wage. People that would accept such a job aren't motivated, they're being forced. Maybe not "at gun point", but certainly under realistic threat of homelessness and starvation, which is just as brutal (and unlike metaphorical gun pointing, actually real). This is where the OP rhetoric fails. It is not a choice to work for $5 - the term choice implies there's another viable alternative that you can choose. But there isn't. People who would accept to work for $5 an hour do not have an alternative to choose, therefore they are not making a choice! In the end, you can employ people under humane conditions by putting pressure on the employers, or provide them with welfare benefits to match what they would make if they were working for a minimum wage. You can pay them wages, or pay them welfare, but either way they get paid. You need to realize that in a civilized society in the 21st century, people will not accept - under any circumstances except the most extreme ones (natural disasters, wars, asteroids hitting planet, etc) - to live below a certain standard, as defined by the minimum wage. And it's a good thing they don't accept it, as this refusal to accept it puts pressure on the people to solve social issues in their communities, pressure that would otherwise not exist.
As an econ major, I hate to break it to you, but you are wrong. Well-intentioned I am sure, but wrong. As the OP stated, minimum wage only helps people who naturally work ABOVE the minimum wage limit. For anyone who's skillsets are worth a rate beneath the limit, it is detrimental, and arguably detrimental to society as a whole.
I hate to break it to you, but you are wrong. You're trying to construct a society based strictly on economic principles - and in your world, that would make sense. In the real world, that can not be done. How are you going to motivate the majority of the people in a society to vote for that, or support that? There ARE NO skill sets that are worth a rate beneath the limit. If you pay a human to take out the trash, it's still worth the minimum wage. If you pay him to stand at the corner of the street for no reason and do nothing all day, it's still worth the minimum wage. The minimum wage reflects the price you must pay to get a human being to do what you want him to do, regardless of what market value of what he's doing job may be. The idea behind minimum wage is that you don't get to have jobs that are worth less - the product or the service of that work is worth less, sure. But the work is worth at least the default minimum wage, because the person doing the job needs minimum wage to survive, which is the only reason one ever needs to justify every wage defaulting to at least the minimum wage. The priority here is not to pay the people what they're worth - because obviously a lot of jobs are worth less than the minimum wage. The priority is to pay them enough. Fact is that every single individual in a civilized society must be paid enough to live at a certain standard, you can't cop out of that no matter what sort of economic gymnastics you do. If you don't pay them the minimum wage on a job, then you need to pay for social care.
On May 08 2012 22:53 alphafuzard wrote:
The misconception spawns from the fact that most people are employees, and not employers, and thus overestimate the amount of control employers have on wage rates. The only situation in which an employer has true control over the wages of his employees is when you have monopoly situations like the company towns of the late 19th century. When there is competition, wages are largely set by the market and not by the employer. As you said, "a man will not work for $5 an hour if he could work for $10".
And that would matter if we were talking about high skilled employees that would make sense competing for. When it comes to ~minimum wage jobs, the only competition that is relevant is keeping the wage budget for these kinds of jobs as low as possible relative to competitors. A company that pays less wages for braindead menial work is ahead of a company that pays more. People doing these kinds of jobs are highly expendable - you will NEVER need to offer somebody whom your competitor pays $5 a $10 wage - because it makes more sense to drag some desperate person to work for $3 or $1. He'll be more desperate to work, and the difference in skillset between the two people is irrelevant because neither of them HAS any skills to speak of. And you end up saving $3/$4 over your competitor for the exact same job, so even if your guy is slightly less productive in the beginning due to lack of experience, you still come out way ahead overall.
I don't understand why you want to advocate denying the right for someone to work at a lower wage. You say they are desperate, surely this would mean they are willing to accept a low wage? I am not understanding the issue, there are far more benefits to being in employment rather than out of employment. When there is legislation preventing someone to work at a wage rate they chose to work at, then they are forced onto welfare. Are you suggesting that this is better than being in work?
Because nobody should ever be in a position where accepting such work would be acceptable to them. The fact that people find themselves in these situations is a problem of the entire society, it's not their own individual problem - and it needs to be solved in the big picture, rather than them individually solving it not solving anything by taking that job. As for whether it's better for people to work or be on welfare, ask yourself the following - is it better to be on welfare for roughly $10, including all the benefits, or working a job for $3... in which case ALL you get is $3 flat? It's a braindead easy decision for any rational individual, especially given the nature of most of these $3 jobs. OR are you advocating for people to stay on welfare WHILE working a full-time job? In which case, I object to that on a personal level - if they're working a job, then their employer should subsidize them by at least paying over the market value of the job to meet the minimum wage and social benefits instead of all of us subsidizing them through welfare. Why exactly would I pay for welfare for people who are being productive, and their productivity is going towards profit for their employer? They're working for their employer, they are not working for me. For all I know, they might even be working a job I wouldn't approve of, although that in itself is a secondary concern.
Nobody should ever be homeless. Or hungry. But it is a fact of life and you can't write off improvements to the situation because they don't solve the whole problem.
You seem to believe it is the responsibility of the employer to take care of these problems, not your responsibility. Why? Because they are making an exchange of money for services, they are obligated to babysit them?
Employers would argue that it is everyone's responsibility as citizens and tax payers to take care of the problem. Who is to say who is right?
Also, I don't understand what your problem is with people working full time jobs and receiving welfare to supplement them. You, as a tax payer, would actually pay LESS in that case because they are earning some of their living necessities on their own. Not just passively accepting aid, or worse, resorting to illegal methods to survive (crime). Additionally they have some prospect of moving up in the ranks and eventually supporting themselves. |
| |
|
| Alex1Sun May 10 2012 13:02. Posts 413 | Profile Blog # |
On May 10 2012 02:35 FabledIntegral wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 09 2012 16:55 Alex1Sun wrote:
On May 09 2012 15:05 semantics wrote:
On May 09 2012 14:10 Alex1Sun wrote:
On May 08 2012 14:36 ManicMarine wrote:
You claim that it's possible to live on the minimum wage. Have you ever tried it? I fortunately have never had to, but I know people who lived on the minimum wage. They struggled to buy food for themselves. Often, they would eat nothing but bread for 2 or 3 days straight. When they did get food, the diet was extremely limited, particularly lacking in fresh fruit and vegetables. Both their mental and physical health deteriorated and they often relied on others to buy them new clothes, or a meal, or just a piece of fruit. I don't wish the minimum wage on anyone, it is a horrible way to live and no-one should have to do it. You can tell me that the minimum wage should be lowered after you've lived on it for a few weeks.
Edit: I live in a country with quite a high minimum wage too, so I have no idea how people cope in places like America.
This is total nonsense. My wife and I live in Canberra on a quarter (1/4) of a minimum full-time wage each. We can buy all the food we want, rent a nice room, and travel wherever we like. As international students, we aren’t offered any subsidies at all. Still, even though we are not getting any material support, we have already saved enough money to start thinking about having a baby now. We have many friends in Australia who live on even less and already have babies.
Just because the problem doesn't exist for you doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. Cost of living varies greatly and minimum wage doesn't account for that too well at least in the US it doesn't states adjust their minimum wage usually higher then the federal minimum wage but counties etc inside the state have trouble setting a proper minimum wage to reflect cost of living in the area.
I partly agree. In many developing countries a minimum wage will not be enough even to buy cheap food. I have however travelled quite a bit in USA, Europe and Australia. From my experience in all developed world you can have a good life on substantially less than a minimum wage, even if you don't qualify for any subsidies. The only big problem is accommodation, but if you try hard enough, you can usually find a very cheap room rental.
On May 09 2012 15:11 FabledIntegral wrote:
On May 09 2012 15:05 semantics wrote:
On May 09 2012 14:10 Alex1Sun wrote:
On May 08 2012 14:36 ManicMarine wrote:
You claim that it's possible to live on the minimum wage. Have you ever tried it? I fortunately have never had to, but I know people who lived on the minimum wage. They struggled to buy food for themselves. Often, they would eat nothing but bread for 2 or 3 days straight. When they did get food, the diet was extremely limited, particularly lacking in fresh fruit and vegetables. Both their mental and physical health deteriorated and they often relied on others to buy them new clothes, or a meal, or just a piece of fruit. I don't wish the minimum wage on anyone, it is a horrible way to live and no-one should have to do it. You can tell me that the minimum wage should be lowered after you've lived on it for a few weeks.
Edit: I live in a country with quite a high minimum wage too, so I have no idea how people cope in places like America.
This is total nonsense. My wife and I live in Canberra on a quarter (1/4) of a minimum full-time wage each. We can buy all the food we want, rent a nice room, and travel wherever we like. As international students, we aren’t offered any subsidies at all. Still, even though we are not getting any material support, we have already saved enough money to start thinking about having a baby now. We have many friends in Australia who live on even less and already have babies.
Just because the problem doesn't exist for you doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. Cost of living varies greatly and minimum wage doesn't account for that too well at least in the US it doesn't states adjust their minimum wage usually higher then the federal minimum wage but counties etc inside the state have trouble setting a proper minimum wage to reflect cost of living in the area.
Two people living together on minimum wage can live quite comfortably however. Luxurious? No. But comfortable, yes. They'll pay nearly nothing in taxes, more than likely qualify for maximum amounts of tax credits, possibly qualify for some welfare, etc. It's when you try to raise a family on minimum wage that it starts becoming increasingly difficult to provide a proper environment for your child, even if you're a good role model parent in terms of instilling morals and everything.
I agree with no luxuries, but I'm not that sure about children. Again, we have quite a few friends who have a child and live on far less than a minimum wage. Does a child really need that much money? You can always get some second-hand (or rather tenth-twentieth hand) kids clothes for free, cook healthy food yourself instead of buying expensive prepared baby food and make great toys from old carton boxes etc. Free public schools and cheap volunteer-based kids clubs provide good education. Many sports require only a modest investment in equipment (and again you can opt for second-hand). The only bit that requires some substantial amount of money is health care, but here you just have to buy a proper cover (it's not that expensive in most developed countries anyways, even if you earn very little). Overall my point is that minimum wage can be lower in many places throughout developed world, which could help with unemployment.
They estimate the average cost of a child is around ~$220,000 USD by the time they reach 18. That's about ~$12,000 per yer in an increase in spending. If you're on minimum wage, you'll probably find ways to cut corners, say you can cut a third out of that, that's still an additional $8,000 out of your annual salary for an entire year, after tax (although you pay nearly 0 in tax in the USD if you're making minimum wage). That's a pretty hefty hit, especially considering this isn't including any savings for extra things such as college, etc.
I agree, savings are out of question. However median spending is hugely inflated by consumerism and unwillingness to take care of your child yourself instead of buying advertised kids stuff and services. It is definitely possible to spend less that $3000 a year on a child and still give him/her a happy and fulfilling life. Many of our friends do it in some of the most expensive cities around the globe.
On May 10 2012 02:56 ixi.genocide wrote:
one thing about raising children that you guys aren't really looking at is the necessity to find better paying jobs or more jobs as the parent. There is no way in hell that I would raise a child on 350 a week or anything less than that because providing a good environment for raising children is extremely important. Typically with two people raising a child you need to go into fields that provide higher than min wage, the first jobs that come to mind are Waiting tables, Nail/hair salon, construction and truck driving. The real problem with being a no-skilled or under-skilled worker and having children is that you literally have sacrificed your life for your child. You are all in on their success. You get to work hard 40+ hours a week for a long long time until you eventually are considered a journeyman in your field and get paid enough to do something about your life, typically this is when most people drown themselves with buying a home.
Being all-in on a child sounds about right. I see that some people choose this option and are really happy with their choice. Working extra hours helps as well. Being considered a journeyman and getting paid more however doesn't work in many fields. For instance, I'm soon getting a PhD in Physics and will be getting close to minimum per hour wage for several years, until I am about 30 and too old to be employed in research. By then I hope to earn a right to stay in some developed country, and from that point in time any job will do, including unskilled labor. I also don't think I'll ever consider buying a house.
There are a lot of people just like me (both skilled and unskilled). And they don't know whether they'll ever be able to afford a house or earn what is considered enough for children. What if you never earn enough?
I agree that overpopulation and large families are causing all kinds of troubles, but not having children at all is not a solution either, especially if you are willing to invest a lot of effort to do the best job being a parent. And yes, it is possible even if you earn bellow minimum wage.Last edit: 2012-05-10 13:08:08 |
| | This is not Warcraft in space! |
|
|
| Nevermind86 Somalia. May 10 2012 23:02. Posts 416 | Profile # |
On May 09 2012 03:57 Southwards wrote:
This is capitalism. If you are a worker and you agree to work for a certain amount of money, then there is no problem. Minimum wage is actually a very good thing, as in less developed nations it helps to ensure that people are not overly exploited.
Minimum wage is 100% required, I'm not sure why there is debate on this.
Also people should really stop bitching about poverty. Poverty only exists in Africa lol.
Lol you haven't been to ALL of latin america do you? |
| | Interviewer: Many people hate you and would like to see you dead. How does that make you feel? Trevor Goodchild: Those people should get to know me a little better. Then they'd know I don't indulge in feelings. |
|
|
| Inertia_EU United Kingdom. May 10 2012 23:17. Posts 511 | Profile # |
| The minimum wage just prices people out of the labour market, Especially in the UK, there are so many teenagers here that wouldn't mind one bit taking on something below minimum wage on the weekends...Youth unemployment could be reduced so drastically without it. |
|
|
| Adila United States. May 10 2012 23:30. Posts 755 | Profile # |
On May 10 2012 23:17 Inertia_EU wrote:
The minimum wage just prices people out of the labour market, Especially in the UK, there are so many teenagers here that wouldn't mind one bit taking on something below minimum wage on the weekends...Youth unemployment could be reduced so drastically without it.
So what would happen to the people who are currently working those same jobs at minimum wage? |
|
|
| D10 Brazil. May 11 2012 00:18. Posts 3295 | Profile Blog # |
On May 10 2012 23:30 Adila wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 23:17 Inertia_EU wrote:
The minimum wage just prices people out of the labour market, Especially in the UK, there are so many teenagers here that wouldn't mind one bit taking on something below minimum wage on the weekends...Youth unemployment could be reduced so drastically without it.
So what would happen to the people who are currently working those same jobs at minimum wage?
Start selling drugs appareantly because you seem to assume they couldnt do anything else |
| | " We are not humans having spiritual experiences. - We are spirits having human experiences." - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin |
|
|
| FabledIntegral United States. May 11 2012 03:12. Posts 8399 | Profile Blog # |
On May 10 2012 23:30 Adila wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 23:17 Inertia_EU wrote:
The minimum wage just prices people out of the labour market, Especially in the UK, there are so many teenagers here that wouldn't mind one bit taking on something below minimum wage on the weekends...Youth unemployment could be reduced so drastically without it.
So what would happen to the people who are currently working those same jobs at minimum wage?
The point is that those who manage to get the jobs are "lucky" and benefitting from the minimum wage while the others are unfortunate. You could easily conclude you'd be helping the majority (unemployed) out at the expense of the employed. |
|
|
| D_K_night Canada. May 11 2012 03:14. Posts 605 | Profile # |
On May 08 2012 15:16 Norada wrote:
Living in China for the past four years really has showed me how spoiled people are on western countries. You can live off 5$/hour if you wanted to, but people are too spoiled and dont want to. Many people here need to live with multiple people in one apartment to make it by, 6 room mates in a 3bedroom apartment. Or having 4 people in a 2bedroom apartment. Making small amounts of food every day to get by. People can do it and are able to do it. But everyone in the western world has a higher expectation despite the poor financial situation the countries are in.
And how much is rent over there in China? compared to rent over here in the West? What makes you think we aren't already living multiple people to a room? What groups of people did YOU hang around, to give you this conclusion?
Landlords typically don't allow so many heads to a suite. So you cheat and pray they never find out(and evict all of you). 4 ppl to 2 bedroom? That's only 2 ppl per bedroom. Try 3-4 per bedroom and get back to me. I'm disapointed in you. You talk about how it's like live poor, yet you're projecting ignorance.
You do realize what people do they're poor - they steal to survive. Have you even stolen "free" stuff just so that you wouldn't have to buy the bare minimum neccessities? Let me give you just the BEGINNINGS of what desperate people do:
- they steal napkins and other plastic utensils from Mcdonalds, Wendy's and any other fast food establishments. People have shamelessly dug their hands into the napkin dispensers and pulled out the entire stack. Ever wonder why McD's is so stingy on giving you napkins? Well wonder no more.
- toilet paper is a big one, and easy target as well. you learn not to complain about single-ply(the kind where, when it's wet, your fingers poke right through). These are also acquired from fast food restaurants and worst cases, from public washrooms. I would even go far to say that, if you actually see a roll of toilet paper, well it's your lucky day.
- office supplies and catered food. Just because a person has an office job, doesn't make him immune to the realities of living. You will not always be able to make rent all on your own. Having said that, the office is an excellent target for taking advantage of all the amenities provided. You learn to always eat the catered food provided in meetings, stuff pizzas into folded paper towels(Here's what you do. You lay one pizza slice flat, then lay the next slice with meat side down, forming kinda like a sandwich). There, that's your dinner and possibly even lunch for the next day or two. Should any fresh pizza box be left unattended for even a few minutes, that's already enough time to swoop in, slide a paper-towelled hand under the first slice(don't burn yourself), fold counter-clockwise X (how many slices you can get away with), pull out, wrap again, leave, stuff quickly into your backpack to conceal the smell, and zip up.
Canned pop and other prepackaged beverages and meals in the company fridge are prime targets for liberation. The experienced office Robin Hood knows never to go after milk cartons or milk stored in baby bottles. This isn't as common sense as you think. Pre-packaged food in the freezer like those TV dinners are good candidates as well. The 2 litre pop bottles are not safe bets, unless you see someone else FIRST serve themselves. If it's not sealed, let someone else take the plunge before you do.
You also learn to drastically stretch out your meals, and what exactly is the bare minimal amount of food necessary to maintain life. By the way this is not a laughing matter.
In closing just because you've lived in China, doesn't suddenly give you free license to view all the rest of us as spoiled, entitled brats. Shared living is a way of life for many of us...open your eyes. |
| |
|
| Nevermind86 Somalia. May 11 2012 11:12. Posts 416 | Profile # |
On May 09 2012 10:37 ixi.genocide wrote:
The creation of labor unions was needed and the introduction of labor laws that protect workers is a necessity to prevent companies from taking advantage of their workers. I don't think labor unions are needed any more because the laws are already in place to prevent the disasters of the industrial revolution. Why should the government be involved in an agreement between you and your employer. The U.S government shouldn't be representing our interests in the economy (outside of monopolies) and thus the reality is that non-skilled workers (such as myself atm) are not worth that much.
Isn't it interesting that you advocate the elimination of the minimum wage to create more jobs and at the same time recognize that unions were needed to prevent companies from taking advantage of the workers? The laws are there for a reason but they are a piece of paper and people always find loopholes, nothing is final, ever.
Its all about power. The worker that is so unskilled that would work for less than the minimum wage cannot negociate in equal terms with the employer, because there is an assymetry of power and of knowledge, the power of the employer to decide how much a person is worth when that person probably doesn't have many options if options at all and the power of knowledge to get away with it, companies employ a lot of smart people and these smart people will find a way to exploit unskilled workers to a point of almost slavery, they wouldn't be able to do this with people with more skills, because these with more knowledge know better.
The market laws don't apply smoothly with people because you have to take into account the psycological factor of persons, the choises they make under desperation, the choise of some people to exploit others for sometimes even the sake of it, all in all the minimum wage is good because it gives unskilled people with no knowledge a bargaining tool to at least win a minimum, if that floor wasn't there they could be exploited in a lot of different ways not worth to describe. |
| | Interviewer: Many people hate you and would like to see you dead. How does that make you feel? Trevor Goodchild: Those people should get to know me a little better. Then they'd know I don't indulge in feelings. |
|
|
| sluggaslamoo Australia. May 11 2012 11:30. Posts 3602 | Profile Blog # |
On May 10 2012 23:17 Inertia_EU wrote:
The minimum wage just prices people out of the labour market, Especially in the UK, there are so many teenagers here that wouldn't mind one bit taking on something below minimum wage on the weekends...Youth unemployment could be reduced so drastically without it.
Why do people keep saying this, if a teen really wanted a job, they could go in as an intern, and get paid below the minimum wage.
Do you really think fast food chains would hire more people if labour was cheaper?
No.
Companies hire people until they have filled the required capacity. If they need 10 staff, they will get 10 staff, if they find they can pay their staff for half the wages, then they will pay half the wages, and pay their shareholders the savings.
Especially large corporations which has endless trunks of spare cash, they have no issue with hiring more people if they really need to. The point is that the shareholders want as much money as possible, therefore they will pay their employees the absolute minimum possible. |
|
|
| Lockitupv2 United States. May 11 2012 20:19. Posts 378 | Profile # |
On May 11 2012 11:30 sluggaslamoo wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 23:17 Inertia_EU wrote:
The minimum wage just prices people out of the labour market, Especially in the UK, there are so many teenagers here that wouldn't mind one bit taking on something below minimum wage on the weekends...Youth unemployment could be reduced so drastically without it.
Why do people keep saying this, if a teen really wanted a job, they could go in as an intern, and get paid below the minimum wage. Do you really think fast food chains would hire more people if labour was cheaper? No. Companies hire people until they have filled the required capacity. If they need 10 staff, they will get 10 staff, if they find they can pay their staff for half the wages, then they will pay half the wages, and pay their shareholders the savings. Especially large corporations which has endless trunks of spare cash, they have no issue with hiring more people if they really need to. The point is that the shareholders want as much money as possible, therefore they will pay their employees the absolute minimum possible.
It that was true, no one would make over minimum wage.
And yes they would hire teens. |
| | Yo, I take a ho' to the hotel, to the motel, to the holiday innnnnnn |
|
|
| FabledIntegral United States. May 12 2012 16:49. Posts 8399 | Profile Blog # |
On May 11 2012 11:30 sluggaslamoo wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 23:17 Inertia_EU wrote:
The minimum wage just prices people out of the labour market, Especially in the UK, there are so many teenagers here that wouldn't mind one bit taking on something below minimum wage on the weekends...Youth unemployment could be reduced so drastically without it.
Why do people keep saying this, if a teen really wanted a job, they could go in as an intern, and get paid below the minimum wage. Do you really think fast food chains would hire more people if labour was cheaper? No. Companies hire people until they have filled the required capacity. If they need 10 staff, they will get 10 staff, if they find they can pay their staff for half the wages, then they will pay half the wages, and pay their shareholders the savings. Especially large corporations which has endless trunks of spare cash, they have no issue with hiring more people if they really need to. The point is that the shareholders want as much money as possible, therefore they will pay their employees the absolute minimum possible.
That's not true, grocery stores are a prime example of a company where layoffs happen whenever minimum wage increases.
|
|
|
| Xapti Canada. May 12 2012 17:17. Posts 2211 | Profile # |
If a person owns a property to live on it's extremely easy to get by on less than minimum wage. Otherwise, you'd have to ensure you're living in the right place. Sharing a cheap place with one or more people, or else living alone in a dirt-cheap place. Rent/mortgage is certainly the largest factor
The biggest issue living off minimum wage has is when one has children to take care of. It is certainly POSSIBLE even then, but it would certainly not be easy. This is the biggest reason in favor of minimum wage I suppose, but in my opinion that should mean it should only apply to providing parents or something. That said, I know there'd be problems with that (not that there aren't problems like that already though), namely filtering out those people from jobs. Because of that I'm not necessarily recommending that in this imperfect world.
On May 08 2012 14:36 ManicMarine wrote:
You claim that it's possible to live on the minimum wage. Have you ever tried it? I fortunately have never had to, but I know people who lived on the minimum wage. They struggled to buy food for themselves. Often, they would eat nothing but bread for 2 or 3 days straight. When they did get food, the diet was extremely limited, particularly lacking in fresh fruit and vegetables. Both their mental and physical health deteriorated and they often relied on others to buy them new clothes, or a meal, or just a piece of fruit. I don't wish the minimum wage on anyone, it is a horrible way to live and no-one should have to do it. You can tell me that the minimum wage should be lowered after you've lived on it for a few weeks.
Edit: I live in a country with quite a high minimum wage too, so I have no idea how people cope in places like America.
Aus minimum wage is high, but the cost of living is high as well. I would think that the minimum cost of living would very likely be higher in Australia than in the USA.
I don't know about the cost of vegetables and fruit where you live, but in North america and asia it's oftentimes a very good price. Potatoes, carrots, radish, celery, bananas, lettuce, and oranges are quite inexpensive in north America. Diet can be supplemented with natural foraging too depending where you live (clover, dandelion, etc.)
Milk and eggs are pretty cheap too since they're subsidized by the government, and are very healthy.
Many people claim to not have access to healthy food when poor, but it's more their attitude/tastes that is against it. You can't get great tasting ready-made food, but you can get ready-to-eat basic food, as well as great-tasting home-made food. Too many people have a habit of eating out, or not watching the prices of the foods they're buying.
Aside from BUYING food, places like the USA has an abundance of used or spoiled free food. Look up the term freegan. It's not my thing, but I certainly admire those who do it.Last edit: 2012-05-12 17:24:39 |
| | "Then he told me to tell you that he wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire" — "Well, you tell him that I said that I wouldn't piss on him if he was on Jeopardy!" |
|
|
| Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next All |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Sidebar Settings...
|
Store
WCS
