Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Dude, if you knew John then you'd know this makes sense..at least to him
OK red
always interesting to hear unique perspectives.any thoughts on adjusting the minimum wage to a low-end 'living wage' given cost-of-living in different sections of America?
It's clearly a race to the bottom set by Greedy Corrupt Corp Execs sanctioned by the Politicians they have bought.
In order to compete globally with the like of China we must go down to their level and pay workers 20 cents an hour and work them 18 hours or more a day.
In order to compete globally with the like of China we must go down to their level and pay workers 20 cents an hour and work them 18 hours or more a day.
international free-trade has lots of problems that Orthodox economic views don't look at. But in-nation freedom of the market benefits all Americans.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
First off, Minimum wage is NOT a living wage. Never has been - never will be and here is why. If you arbitrarily set the minimum wage at a "living wage" what number should it be? $8/hr? $9/hr? $10/hr? So if that happens what does a somewhat skilled person do who makes $11/$12/$13/hr? Their "compensation" has just decreased in value(comparatively) so do they also get to get a bump in wages? Who pays for these wages?
Anyway the whole idea of having minimum wage = living wage is BS. What constitutes a "living wage"? I'd really like to know from a "progressive"(liberal) who advocates raising the minimum wage or making it a "living wage". Alright - I'll open it to anyone who thinks either of those things. How much is a "living wage"?
CkG
Anyway the whole idea of having minimum wage = living wage is BS. What constitutes a "living wage"? I'd really like to know from a "progressive"(liberal) who advocates raising the minimum wage or making it a "living wage". Alright - I'll open it to anyone who thinks either of those things. How much is a "living wage"?
CkG
as much as it costs for a efficiency apartment, food, and transportation to work for one person each month, divided by the 172hour work-moth. We have this information already for every location in the US for things like section 8 housing and food stamps.
In my location in south-Texas it'd be about $3 an hour, in sanfransisco it may be $11 an hour.
such is my suggestion that we adjust it based on cost of living in a particular location.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,783
- 6,340
- 126
I agree that a Minimum Wage is overall a good thing, but I think your proposal is too complicated and would cause more harm than good, especially in High Cost areas. There are other ways to counteract disadvantages in High Cost areas that are less complicated and don't interfere with the Marketplace as dramatically. These alternatives include Social Housing, affordable Public Transportation(could also include subsidized passes for the poor if need be), etc. The biggest problem, if I understand correctly, with this Min. Wage proposal, is that businesses might choose to relocate to Low Cost areas(not necessarily bad, but disruptive) or Consumers may travel from High Cost to Low Cost areas to purchase their Goods or Services as Prices would likely be lower.
High Cost areas are that way for a reason and often are important Economic Engines as High Cost leads to High Wages naturally. If you force too high a Wage Business and People wil leave for greener pastures(Low Cost areas), possibly destroying the advantages of the High Cost area. It's quite one thing to have a National or even State Minimum Wage, but to have differing one's down to Local levels would cause something that is not really predictable. It could be disastrous.
Another problem is that such a system would have to be constantly monitored and adjusted. That would just add to everyone's stress, from Business never knowing what their Wage Costs would be, to Workers also not knowing what their Wages would be.
OTOH, such a system could acheive what you want, Developement of Underdeveloped areas and a Living Wage in Developed areas. There are too many variables to know beforehand what the result might be though, as Emotions, Politics, or Economics can throw a monkeywrench into the whole thing unnexpectedly. If anyone was serious about implementing such a system, it should be implemented no higher than State level or perhaps on a Regional(within state, perhaps large Urban area such as LA) first, just to see what the outcome is. I'd wager that it would be so controversial that it wouldn't even reach implementation.
High Cost areas are that way for a reason and often are important Economic Engines as High Cost leads to High Wages naturally. If you force too high a Wage Business and People wil leave for greener pastures(Low Cost areas), possibly destroying the advantages of the High Cost area. It's quite one thing to have a National or even State Minimum Wage, but to have differing one's down to Local levels would cause something that is not really predictable. It could be disastrous.
Another problem is that such a system would have to be constantly monitored and adjusted. That would just add to everyone's stress, from Business never knowing what their Wage Costs would be, to Workers also not knowing what their Wages would be.
OTOH, such a system could acheive what you want, Developement of Underdeveloped areas and a Living Wage in Developed areas. There are too many variables to know beforehand what the result might be though, as Emotions, Politics, or Economics can throw a monkeywrench into the whole thing unnexpectedly. If anyone was serious about implementing such a system, it should be implemented no higher than State level or perhaps on a Regional(within state, perhaps large Urban area such as LA) first, just to see what the outcome is. I'd wager that it would be so controversial that it wouldn't even reach implementation.
I actually hope it will, a lower population density in our city's will reduce the crime-rate and create opportunity's for ladders into the middle class for many of our working poor. Everyone that is still needed in city, although still working and poor, will never have to worry about going homeless or without food.
This would also encourage businesses in high-cost places to provide their own low-cost transportation and low-cost housing, removing the burden from the tax-payer, freeing up funds for education that will draw the higher-paying jobs.
I think that ghettos are a sure-sign that thing need to be changed; my ideas are from the radical middle though.
we already have this data, as per section 8 housing and food stamps; how about we adjust things once every 10 years, to coincide with the census report?
a mass migration of people from the poor inner city into new semi-rural manufacturing centers might well be socially disruptive, but their are many things about the high-population density less-than-affluent inner city that would do well to be disrupted.
A state level, but the ability to go below fed-level minimum wage would be necessary for some sections; or a state that doesn't have any city's with cost-of-living for such a minimum wage below 5.15.
Think-tanks in Washington come up with ideas all the time that they work on marketing and pushing into the public view.
I think that ideas like this can energize the vast-radical middle of-the-road that doesn't vote now, but might if they knew a true-reform was possible.
an are you trying to make an argument based on pecuniary benefit? I'd say that the negative social settings of the inner city are incentive enough to over come other incentives not to move when a financial incentive such as a drop in minimum wage is given, and dis-insentive such as an increse in minimum wage.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
You missed the point. When does a wage suddenly become "livable"? What defines livable? Why is location the a big factor and better yet -why should it. If you can't "afford" to live somewhere why should that place's minimum wage be higher just because YOU can't afford things.
And then once that is defined we can debate wether MINIMUM wage should become that "livable wage". There needs to be a base definition of "livable" otherwise it's just "feelings" and arbitrary numbers.
CkG
All you guys are describing is exactly what is happening here anyway, we are migrating to the India style Caste System.
"otherwise it's just "feelings" and arbitrary numbers"
But you live for those arbitrary numbers.
instead of grand-standing on the 'righteousness' of your view, you've made a very strong emotional argument for your side.
This is an honest difference of opinion with those who say we should seek the best overall gain.
I understand the ideological stance you are coming from, you don't have to take me thought the thought-experiment to understand why a minimum wage is a major cause of unemployment and an overall lower standard of living.
This is an honest difference of opinion with those who say we should 'provide' the best overall life for the 'little guy';
I've given you a definition of 'living wage', something that the progressives of the argument agree with: enough to pay for a single person to live in an efficiency apartment, for food, and for transportation.
These numbers are available due to the section 8 housing and food-stamp programs that collect these numbers.
This creates a minimum wage adjusted for cost-of-living; It frees the market system in many locations and encourages re-location of our potential work-force that's outside of the labor market because of subsidies to live in places have a cost-of-living higher than the value society is willing to give them; If we force society to give them this wage fewer will be employed in places demand is lacking and movement to places that have higher demand and lower cost of living will fill, these people will be able to get out of the 'ghetto cycle' and their children will be able to enter the middle class.
increasing the labor pool is a benefit for our society's production, and lower population density and lower cost of living for the 'working poor' allows us to help those who are least in our society.
sounds like central goverment planning - quite frankly it sounds like communism as practiced in the now defunct Soviet Union.
politics will be rife in the determination of "cost" and "wages", "encouraged to move" sounds vaguely like forced relocation..
what you are proposing is the goverment taking charge of the market system...where does the consitution state the goverment has the right or the duty to perform these functions.. what on earth makes you believe the goverment will be better at this that the marketplace..
sounds like pie-in-the-sky liberal palaver
how are you going to accomodate labor that is not seeking a "living wage" - kids looking for spare cash, part time employees that work multiple jobs,
what are you going to include in your "package" that determines the "minimum wage"...good god..the politicians are gonna have a field day withthis..you can mandate insurance coverage, medical, dental premiums, school tuiton, condoms, viagra, retirement benefits..ANY AND EVERYTHING can end up getting cobbled into the "minimum wage' as you define it.
in any market, if you start price fixing, you create shortages...you decide what the minimum wage is, your goning to find the job market collapse, and off-shore sourcing of jobs expanded even faster and broader..
The market system re-locates people based on what the demand is, subsidization of people to live in the ghettos of American inner city is why we have such a problem with inner city crime and he cycle of poverty.
The important aspect is that the minimum wage will actually be lower than it is now in parts of America that have a lower cost of living, this will increase production, reduce overall cost of living in America, lower unemployment and increase the workforce participation.
I know the ideological argument for elimination of minimum wage: BUT we do have a minimum wage, this is what the population wants, this is what we've got; what we should do now is work within this structure to both give the people what they want in a 'living wage' and adjust the minimum wage to stop encouraging people to live off of work-fair programs because they live in high cost of living locations.
I know you agree with my favorite Reagen quote "the government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have": BUT with the minimum wage as it is is meaningless in locations that it's least usefully: big cities; it's also causing shortages whare it's least needed: low cost of living sections of the country;
This benefits everyone, and uses government that's already in-place. This would actually be a reduction in the amount of government interference in the market system because it would reduce social-services payments because people will choose to move to new job locations.
i just need to figure out how to explain that increasing the minimum wage in cities is going to actually decrease the ghetto population.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
OK, so you have a definition of "livable" wages and lets just say that everyone agreed on that even though in reality I'm sure alot will disagree. Now why then would one argue that "livable" wages should be the "minimum" wage? Should a highschool kid with a summer job be making a "livable wage" even though they are totally unskilled? Should minimum be defined as one or two incomes? Should two minimum wage people that are married both be "given" livable wages even though with combined expenses you often pay less as a percentage of your income to "live"? Where does it become "fair"(since that is the jist of this debate anyway)? Should it be "fair" in the first place? And then again - who said livable wages are sustainable? ../me goes into inflationary argument...
Anyway - I was only trying to get the point across that this is all "arbitrary" and there is nothing to base any of these "minimum" wage arguments on besides feelings. Who said minimum was supposed to be livable? Why does "livable" get you cable TV? Do you have any idea how many(percentage) "poor" people have telephones, TVs, CABLE TV in America? I don't consider that part of "livable" but yet America's "poor" have it.
CkG
your arguments are redolent with the fragrances of youth, innocence, and total ignorance.
your posts suggest a love of central goverment planning, the belief that people will willing relocate based on better "minimum wage jobs", and that politics will have no influence on the complex calculations your plan envisions to create minimum wage "equity"
your plan is both undoable, and politically doomed.
your posts suggest a love of central goverment planning, the belief that people will willing relocate based on better "minimum wage jobs", and that politics will have no influence on the complex calculations your plan envisions to create minimum wage "equity"
your plan is both undoable, and politically doomed.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Psssttt - I think he's trying to play devils advocate
Meh - I could be wrong though. But it really sounds to me like he's trying present an opposing view to his own.CkG
Shh..Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Psssttt - I think he's trying to play devils advocate
CkG
I'm actually part of the 'poor' here in America; 3 people in my family are going to collage, none of us have a job, and we have enough to eat well, have digital cable HDTV, a TV in each room a computer in each room, and sharing a cable connection, and support a family of 6 *2 people per room in a bedroom apartment* If people would move to locations like this the urban blight that is the inner citty would fade away.
We've got an economic problem of under-employment of our work-force; The inner city is full of people who should be paid less but have a better life! we need to stop subsidizing people living in the inner city and do something to encourage those their to move to lower-population density locations.
We need to normalize the minimum wage, let's drop the marketing term 'living wage' for a moment, i know that any increase in the minimum wage for those who 'need it' will have the progressives agree with it, so calling it 'living wage' is just going to cause the market-minded to knee-jerk against the idea.
here we go:
we normalize the present minimum wage based on cost of living; take the median cost of living in America, keep it at 5.15, adjust up for the $ by the % higher than the average cost of living, and adjust down the $ for the % lower than cot of living.
This will encourage investment in the lowest cost-of-living locations for manufacturing and keep only the most valuable employees in the higher cost of living locations.
The first step is to be honest: minimum wage is a form of welfare. once we realize the truth of this we can start factoring it into other welfare benefits and start reducing the minimum wage in the locations that it's functioning to hurt the economy.
So we increase the work-force and increase the livability of wages for everyone.
Wow, how generous you are with other people's money. Namely, employers. How about a better idea, like giving businesses tax incentives for hiring more people than they really need, or something along those lines?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter