How could anyone argue that a Universal Living Wage is a good idea?

[diamondgoat53]

Originally posted by: GWDWD
Gregg Easterbrook of The New Repbulic makes one of the better arguments for it I have seen in his book The Progress Paradox: How Life Gets Better While People Feel Worse. It is primarily a way of redistributing money, no doubt, but his argument is that it would be done much more efficienctly than it is now (i.e., by rewarding people who have jobs). As far as it being teens who are the minimum wage workers, the easy way around that would be to have a minimum wage for those under a given age and a different one for those above it.

I'm not really convinced that this is the answer, but as far as the OP's question goes I think this book would be a good place to start.

Another good book on the working poor is Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America.

hey. if you like easterbrook, check out his blog on the TNR site.

always interesting reading!

 

[yukichigai]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: yukichigai

Actually, scratch that. What we should just do is simply adjust the minimum wage up every 2-4 years, based on inflation rates using a 3-5 year running average. Sure, in hard dollars it goes up, but relative to the price of everything it should stay the same.

If inflation is going up at the present time without a min wage increase, it will go up even more if an increase is forced.
the situation will still be the same, min wage will just be accelerating inflation.

also, when the min wage goes up, it will generate a ripple across the board. Who wants some newbe to get the same salary as you who have experience.

The fact that minimum wage is not adjusted with inflation seems to suggest that inflation is artificially slowed because of it, at the price of screwing those at minimum wage. If anything you should argue that hurts the economy, since they'll be spending less relative to the value of the dollar each year.

And we aren't talking a huge increase anyway. Using the Federal Industrial Average we're talking a maximum of 4-7¢ per year, and on average it'll probably be 2-3¢. Not a lot, yeah, but it'll add up over time.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Any type of wage increase will have a ripple effect. Somebody will have to cover the costs and nobody in the business sector wants to eat it. Therefore, the cost of goods to the consumer will go up.

A standard estimate of the value of a dollar in the economy is that it is recycled 3-4 times its value. Therefore the impact of the wage increase will probably be a 4 times the percentage increase into the final cost of goods to the consumer.

Example:
A Minimum wage of 5.25 goes up to 5.40 (ignore the liberals that will complain that it is to little) That 3% may translate between a 3% and 10% jump in the final cost of goods depending on how close the min wage earner is to the end consumer.

Assumption is that if the min wage goes up, all wages will jump proportionally. After all, who wants to have a teenage floor sweeper get paid more because they were at the bottom of the ladder.
If the wages do not jump then the impact will be less, but the line must be drawn somewhere. Also, where ever the line is drawn, when the final cost of goods impact is felt, then that will start another wage increase cycle.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: dtyn
Socialism is bad.

If you're going to say "socialism is bad" you also have to say "capitalism is bad".

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Btw, Austin is a living wage city. Contractors and such working for the city are required to pay their employees $10 an hour.

 

[ultimatebob]

Originally posted by: Ornery
"...we also need some tougher laws out there that keep crooked companies from screwing their employees."

If I offer $3.00 per hour to sort widgets, and workers take me up on that offer, then who is screwing who? If you don't like the wages being paid, there's no chain holding you to the job... LEAVE! Damn, how hard is that to understand?

Anyone who is foolish enough to work for $3.00 an hour is screwing themselves . With wages that low, you might as well just stay on welfare and spend those hours looking for better work! Sadly, there are some unemployed people who would take the job out of despiration, however, and just find themselves falling even further behind. I guess that you have no problem expoiting people in this manner for a bigger cut of the profits, but fortunately the US government has laws against it.

 

[SSibalNom]

Originally posted by: Ameesh
having a minimum wage in the us is fine but trying to have a global minimum wage is idiotic

i agree, in some cases i think even the national min wage is stretching it, i mean really..... you COULD live in west virginia off $4 an hour

 

[przero]

As long as companies outsource to foriegn countries, or worse yet, move manufacturing facilities to foriegn countries, the minimum wage debate is moot. Why hire someone in the U.S. for $5.20/hr when you can cross the border and get 6-8 people for the same price? Wages are a factor or supply and demand. I have nine guys that work for me and none of them is close to min. wage. Why? Because you can't find anyone to work at that price. You want good help, you pay more. But as we lose more and more manufacturing jobs, the overall wage rate drops. The top earners will make less and a slow downward spiral to OUR (U.S.) economy will ensue. I support wholeheartedly a Living Wage Minimum for China, Thailand, Mexico, et.al. And I support environmental standars equivilent to ours for those countries.

 

[Ornery]

"...there are some unemployed people who would take the job out of despiration..."

What do you pay your baby sitter? How about the kid who cuts your grass or washes your car? It would serve you right if the government brought you under the same rules you like to inflict on small businesses.

As it is, the businesses around here offer well more than the minimum wage to attract workers. Any less, and there are NO applicants! That's EXACTLY the way it should be! We don't need a nanny government watching out for us.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: beer

Originally posted by: yukichigai

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: Jmman
Maybe economics classes should be mandatory....just an idea....

Personally, I think it should be to. And I think other states should follow Texas, and require both Federal and State Govt to earn any college degree.

Governments can earn degrees?

Seriously though, do you mean government leaders or government employees? 'cause if it were employees that would suck. How many Highway Patrol Officers do you think really need that Bachelor's in art history?

You have to take 1 semester of American and Texas gov't and 1 semester of foreign policy in a particular field. You also need two semester of US history. To earn any 4-year degree in Texas, but I don't think it applies to associate's degrees

No thats UT's requirement. The Texas legislature requirement is 1 semester of Fed Govt, and 1 semester of Texas Govt. At UT you have to take Govt, and Issues in Govt. Other schools teach Fed Govt/Issues in Fed govt as one class called American Govt. - Federal, the other class is Texas Govt, and Issues in Texas Govt, its called, American Govt - State. UT just breaks it down differently its the same material, just taught different. And Associate Degrees require 2 semesters of Govt, 2 semesters of history, 2 english, 2 science, 1 social science, 1 wellness, and college algebra, plus classes for the major.

Like I said in my previous post. I think all four year degrees granted in the US should require both Federal and State Govt(for the state the schools in) and Micro & Macro Economics. People need to know and understand how these things work(economics, and govt at the federal, state, and local level).

 

[Argo]

A below average house costs $200k+ in my area. Considering 30 year mortgage that's $1500 a month. Multiply that times 3, and add taxes you get $70,000 a year. So are they trying to say that the kid working at McDonalds should be getting 70k a year? Typical meal would cost $50 then and you'll end up using half your salary on food, at which point you won't have enough left over to pay your mortgage. So the salaries will have to go up again, which will cause prices to rise even more, which in terms will lead to World War 3 and the end of mankind.

 

[TGregg]

If "a living wage" is good, why don't we just institute a "living really, really darn good wage" of say $50 an hour?

 

[Dragnov]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Ornery
"...we also need some tougher laws out there that keep crooked companies from screwing their employees."

If I offer $3.00 per hour to sort widgets, and workers take me up on that offer, then who is screwing who? If you don't like the wages being paid, there's no chain holding you to the job... LEAVE! Damn, how hard is that to understand?

right.

if they do not have the skill/training to get a better job then that is not my problem. Mine is/was keeping my business going. trust me when i say i will not take a cut in MY pay (profit etc) because they raised the min wage. I will just let one my employees go. If i have to sweep the floor myself i will.

even raising the min wage $2 wont help the poor who are working these jobs but it will hurt the small business owner. heck i think i twill even hurt the large ones. All they will do is lay people off to increase the bottom line. i dont see that helping anyone.,

What if they never had the opportunity to recieve the skills/training. For example, say they grew up as an orphan, you think they have the capital or time to get an education? Say what if they came from abusive parents and ran away? Now lets look ahead. Working as much as they can just to be able to keep living, what will be their source of transportation? Public transportation? Of course that still costs money, and most often still several miles away from where you need to go. Theres no better job lined up for them you know. How can they "LEAVE" when they have nowhere to go, and even if they did no way of getting there.

Jesus christ, you guys think the world is so simple and easy, sheltered in your priveledged life. Try spending the night outside of your home with nothing but the clothes on your back and whats in your wallet. Now go try and get yourself a "real" job with a resume of "janitor". Oh right, get an education. But of course, they need that job first don't they?

Now I'm not arguing for universal living wage. Another of those liberal ideas with good intentions, but horrible implementation. But geez.

If you really don't give a damn because you have problems of your own well :beer: for you...