Poll: Do you think the federal hourly min. wage should increase?
Yes. It should go to $15 (or more)
Yes. But to something in the $9-$12 range, then it should rise with inflation.
No. It should stay as is.
No. We shouldn't even have a fed. Min. wage.
Other. Read my post to see my brilliance!
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
Opinions on the proposed US $15 Min. Wage
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-05-2016, 08:47 AM
RE: Opinions on the proposed US $15 Min. Wage
(27-05-2016 08:42 AM)Adrianime Wrote:  
(27-05-2016 08:34 AM)cjlr Wrote:  1), the increase is proposed to take quite a few years to increment up;
A few years is a "relatively short amount of time".

Compared to what, axial precession?

In the US, at least, plenty of past increases have been +20-40% within a couple years.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
27-05-2016, 08:53 AM
Opinions on the proposed US $15 Min. Wage
$15 an hour is too much. $10 an hour isn't though. We should just have it adjusted to $10 and adjust it every 5 years in accordance with inflation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2016, 09:07 AM (This post was last modified: 27-05-2016 09:49 AM by Tartarus Sauce.)
RE: Opinions on the proposed US $15 Min. Wage
(27-05-2016 05:21 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  Or up your skill set - become a more valuable employee, demonstrate that to the employer - and if they don't respond --- go to another company that WILL pay you more.......


.....

You shouldn't make more because you can cost your employer money (by going on strike) -- you should make more, by being BETTER AT YOUR JOB......


It worked for me.

I was making almost 20 bucks an hour -- back in the 1990's -- without a college education. I also never worked in a union shop.

Relevant part highlighted.

The job market doesn't work the same way it did back in the nineties. You can't expect to be making twenty bucks an hour without a college degree anymore other than in a few select areas and careers. A bachelor's degree is the entry level requirement for the majority of decently paying jobs nowadays. Many of those Walmart workers can't afford to up their skill set because education costs have skyrocketed and working class Americans have seen their job opportunities dwindle considerably over the past several decades.

Walmart is a massive, hulking corporation that employs 1 out of every 100 Americans in the labor force and has tens of thousands of branches proliferating every nook and cranny of America. Many declined manufacturing towns have Walmart as their biggest local employer. Most of the people being employed at Walmart have no better job openings to migrate to if they are unsatisfied because of this, and also because Walmart muscles out significant portions of local retailers that have already set up shop.

Walmart is way too big to not have any effective competitors in the discount department store business. It's allowed them to run many of their operations like a monopoly, with their universally shit treatment of employees being a telltale indicator. Their cheating of employees out of benefits and overtime pay is well documented and the outright ban on unionization prevents any remedy of these grievances by barring workers from any form of leverage. Since most of them can't afford an education to upgrade their skill set and many live in towns where the local economy is in the dumps, leaving Walmart simply isn't an option.

It's great you got as far as you did, but non-college educated workers are caught in a far more unforgiving job market these days. Castigating them for not seeking out higher level jobs or for not working hard enough is a fundamental misreading of their situation. No doubt on an individual level some people are just flat out lazy, but as a whole, many of these people are trapped in lower level jobs due to economic forces beyond their control. It's not the low-skilled workers' fault that real wages have been stagnant the past two decades, that the middle class is hollowing while the upper and lower classes are growing, and that decent paying jobs that don't require a college education are increasingly difficult to find. Yes, one could argue Walmart is just doing what a corporation is supposed to do and considering the fact that they are such a huge company that employs just about anybody, they are providing a valuable service by reducing unemployment. But their cutthroat business practices have drawn scorn for being exploitative and have been criticized for aggravating the poverty trap an increasing number of working class Americans are finding themselves in.

It's not fair to assume these people don't want to be hard workers as a whole. The reality is that the economy has yet to find a niche for them where the demand for their labor is high enough to provide them a livable wage.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Tartarus Sauce's post
27-05-2016, 09:41 AM (This post was last modified: 27-05-2016 03:02 PM by Full Circle.)
RE: Opinions on the proposed US $15 Min. Wage
Cause and effect. Bear with me a bit for this tl;dr post.

An aging population = 10,000 baby boomers retire every day and will continue to do so until 2027. (Disclosure I’m one of them).
http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/...rs-retire/

US Government has to pay for Medicare and Social Security, by far the largest chunk of the budget (a mandated expense).

[Image: total_spending_pie,__2015_enacted.png]

The Fed has to pay for all of this BUT most of the SS garnered from the Old Geezers over their working lifetimes has already been spent on things like wars, empire building and expansionism among other things. Because the government can’t seem to keep a penny in their pocket the USA now has to borrow money to pay for these costs. Money isn’t free, they have to pay interest on it.

Who have they borrowed from? Ironically mostly from the American people in the form of issuing Treasury Notes although about a third is owned outside our shores.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2...4c655f1907

As higher paying interest notes come due the Fed issues lower interest bearing notes. Good right? Sort of. Now the old Geezers that were counting on their lifetime savings and investments to get them through old age are making less and less on their money. This drives them to hoard more and more of it (not spend it) to generate the same amount as before with the lower paying treasury notes.

How does this affect the economy? Well, the Velocity of Money decreases. What the hell does that mean?
"The velocity of money is, according to the Federal Reserve, “the ratio of nominal GDP (gross domestic product) to a measure of the money supply (M1 or M2). It can be thought of as the rate of turnover of the money supply -- that is, the number of times one dollar is used to purchase final goods and services in GDP”.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/...money.html

It means that less and less money is being funneled back into the economy. Less money, less sales. Less sales, more layoffs or lower pay. Lower pay, less spending. Less spending, less sales...see the downward spiral?

Why would the government want lower interest rates? Is it because its good for borrowers? Partly, but mostly it’s good for them since they have to pay lower interest on all that borrowed money, money they had to borrow because they blew it along the way. Angry

Its funny to me that the very people who scream and shout that the government is too big and spends too much are the same people who cash the social security checks, take full advantage of Medicare, support wars and an enormous military complex and bitch about the country going to shit. Meanwhile the same people voted and supported all along many of the local pork-barrel expenditures, ill-advised foreign policies, subsidies and wasteful expenses that took place throughout their lives (or didn’t vote at all). But I digress.

So, what does all this have to do with a $15 hourly wage? Consider Good question.

It means that the government has run out of ideas on how to stimulate the economy and is now thinking that the only bullet they have left is to increase minimum wage. The thinking goes like this: increase the velocity of money by putting dollars in the pockets of those who are more apt to spend it thereby inceasing demand for goods and services. More demand = prosperity.

Will it work? Possibly. But remember cause and effect. Down the road as demand grows so does inflation. Inflation acts as gravity on the buying power of a dollar bringing us Full Circle to where we are now UNLESS the government stops spending like a sailor at a whorehouse.

So to all of you ‘Murikans out there, let your voices be heard at the polling booth in both local and national elections. We need more trade, not less and allow American ingenuity reduce the current imbalance of our trading deficit with the rest of the world. We need a better educated electorate (3% on education Weeping , 1% on science Shocking ) We need less meddling in foreign affairs and more investment in national infrastructure, education and renewable sources of energy so we can care less and less who is sitting on all the oil reserves. Not having to buy foreign oil is a big savings. Stop squabbling between the haves and have nots, without each other the system breaks down. What you need to concentrate your ire on is on how our system allows those with money to buy the power, this can be changed, if you scream loudly enough, for campaign finance reform to level the playing field. http://www.democracymatters.org/what-you...ed-reform/

Not all who are rich are bad and not all who are poor are good, remember that.

Didn’t mean this to turn into a Magnus Opus but...

An aside: War is not the answer (to kick start an economy, it just passes the buck down the road).

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Full Circle's post
27-05-2016, 09:54 AM
RE: Opinions on the proposed US $15 Min. Wage
(27-05-2016 08:53 AM)KUSA Wrote:  $15 an hour is too much. $10 an hour isn't though. We should just have it adjusted to $10 and adjust it every 5 years in accordance with inflation.

Why is $15 too much and $10 is just right? How do you know? What is that opinion based on? How do you know $15 isn't too low?

I'm genuinely curious. Are you just going with a number that you like better? Or is there some economic bases for it?

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2016, 10:57 AM
RE: Opinions on the proposed US $15 Min. Wage
(27-05-2016 08:42 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(27-05-2016 08:40 AM)Adrianime Wrote:  And on top of that, do other countries have modern record of moving min. wage up more than 100% in a short period of time (without even accounting for inflation)?

No.

But then again, no one is proposing that.

Notwithstanding that I still don't think a national minimum wage is well-suited to the granularity of cost of living, have you actually read the proposals?
What do you mean? That is exactly what is being proposed.

$7.25 to $15 = a more than 100% change.
A few years (or "the next several years" as some proposals put it) IS a short amount of time, no matter how you choose to joke about it.

If you are arguing against me saying "without even accounting for inflation" then sure I might be wrong about that, since technically the new amount would be the inflated value compared to today's dollars. I was thinking about how the public perceives the $15/hr raise. They (seem to) think about it in today's dollars, not future dollars. They aren't thinking "Well I want to be making $13.50, which would be the equivalent of $15 in year XXXX." Of course that's just my own observation.

Although I agree with your third sentence.

(27-05-2016 08:47 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(27-05-2016 08:42 AM)Adrianime Wrote:  A few years is a "relatively short amount of time".

Compared to what, axial precession?

In the US, at least, plenty of past increases have been +20-40% within a couple years.
Compared to the history of the US min. wage. And, yeah +20-40% is very different from +100%. Aside from 1 bump in 1950, there has never been a change so drastic that the (2012 equivalent) has changed by more than +/- 50% in a 10 year period.

I prefer fantasy, but I have to live in reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2016, 11:05 AM (This post was last modified: 27-05-2016 11:16 AM by Adrianime.)
RE: Opinions on the proposed US $15 Min. Wage
(27-05-2016 09:41 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  Will it work? Possibly. But remember cause and effect. Down the road as demand grows so does inflation. Inflation acts as gravity on the buying power of a dollar bringing us Full Circle to where we are now UNLESS the government stops spending like a sailor at a whorehouse.
Is this the mystery behind your username? Consider

I prefer fantasy, but I have to live in reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2016, 12:09 PM
RE: Opinions on the proposed US $15 Min. Wage
(27-05-2016 11:05 AM)Adrianime Wrote:  
(27-05-2016 09:41 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  Will it work? Possibly. But remember cause and effect. Down the road as demand grows so does inflation. Inflation acts as gravity on the buying power of a dollar bringing us Full Circle to where we are now UNLESS the government stops spending like a sailor at a whorehouse.
Is this the mystery behind your username? Consider

No, just gratuitous self promotion. Big Grin

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
27-05-2016, 01:45 PM
RE: Opinions on the proposed US $15 Min. Wage
Aside from a $15/hour min not really being feasible for many businesses, I don't think this is really a good way to go about addressing the underlying problem, which is income inequality. That a lot of money is tied up in a very small number of people in a very small portion of the economy.

There are ways to fix it. Strengthen estate taxes, and capital gains taxes. Income is income. Regulations on financial markets. Higher corporate taxes with a investment tax credit. Ensure a right to collective bargaining, and to forming unions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2016, 08:18 PM
RE: Opinions on the proposed US $15 Min. Wage
(27-05-2016 07:44 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Minimum wage in Canada is set provincially and is currently above $10 nationwide; these if not explicitly mandated to track inflation have all been raised within the last year regardless (albeit by small increments).

My immediate gut feeling is that $15 USD is ridiculously high but at least the proposals I've seen floated have that as a 10 year target or some such.

If the point is to have a living wage, then would it not necessarily need to be at different levels where the actual cost of living varies?

Regarding different levels at different places depending on living costs.
How would you even achieve that though? The minimum wage is gonna last forever, but the cost of living can go up or down. So you might adjust the minimum wage for one area only for that area's cost of living to significantly increase/decrease.

Not to mention people already flock to the cities, more so if the minimum wage in them is high.

I don't think it'd be realistic to do anything smaller than the state level.

Quote:Tax breaks to businesses does nothing to incentivise them to hire more people but an increase in business does.

Yea this makes a lot of sense (and I know DLJ brought it up earlier too).
If you have an increase in business you're gonna actually NEED extra staff.
Businesses wont employee extra people for the sake just hiring extra people, there needs to a reason and there needs to be money. Increase in business provides both a reason and money whereas tax cuts provide just money.

Quote:Aside from a $15/hour min not really being feasible for many businesses

You say that but what proof do you have?
What statistics show that X amount of businesses will be in the red if they have to pay their employees X more.

I have no doubt some businesses will go under if it suddenly went up to $15.
But if it's going up incrementally it'll be less of a sudden impact.

I think it's something businesses say because they don't wanna pay employees more. I'm skeptical as to how true the statement is though and how many business would actually go under because of it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: