The Minimum Wage. Its time to raise it Federally.

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
A large portion of the stock market at the time was purchased with borrowed, imaginary money, created by private banks operating on a reserve system. Contrary to your precious metals currency position (which you haven't mentioned in a while), any deposit institution will eventually switch to a fractional reserve system, unless specifically prohibited from doing so, because they can lend and make more money that way.

Well, thank you for confirming my previous statement. I will say however, that these banks were not private. The Federal Reserve System had been set up in 1913, seven years before the roaring 20's began. Banks cannot get away with fractional reserve fraud indefinately without a government enforced cartel. The bank failures that occurred prior to the Federal Reserve was the free market keeping itself in check. All of the owners of those banks should have been thrown in prison, not given a blank check of endless credit expansion.

When assets like corporate stocks, with a 'real' value of close to zero (basically, the 'secure' value of a stock is the actual assets of a company, minus secured debt) are held with borrowed money, which must itself be repaid in dollars, not stock, it doesn't take a very large drop in values to force widespread selling, and a precipitous drop in market values. This lead to many unecessary corporate bankruptcies, and all sorts of other problems, all without the need for government intervention.

As I stated above, it was indeed caused by government intervention.

Federal Reserve expansion of credit was a bad idea; but private banks selling stocks on tight margins was quite possibly worse.

Those banks were hardly 'private.'

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
A large portion of the stock market at the time was purchased with borrowed, imaginary money, created by private banks operating on a reserve system. Contrary to your precious metals currency position (which you haven't mentioned in a while), any deposit institution will eventually switch to a fractional reserve system, unless specifically prohibited from doing so, because they can lend and make more money that way.

Well, thank you for confirming my previous statement. I will say however, that these banks were not private. The Federal Reserve System had been set up in 1913, seven years before the roaring 20's began. Banks cannot get away with fractional reserve fraud indefinately without a government enforced cartel. The bank failures that occurred prior to the Federal Reserve was the free market keeping itself in check. All of the owners of those banks should have been thrown in prison, not given a blank check of endless credit expansion.

When assets like corporate stocks, with a 'real' value of close to zero (basically, the 'secure' value of a stock is the actual assets of a company, minus secured debt) are held with borrowed money, which must itself be repaid in dollars, not stock, it doesn't take a very large drop in values to force widespread selling, and a precipitous drop in market values. This lead to many unecessary corporate bankruptcies, and all sorts of other problems, all without the need for government intervention.

As I stated above, it was indeed caused by government intervention.

Federal Reserve expansion of credit was a bad idea; but private banks selling stocks on tight margins was quite possibly worse.

Those banks were hardly 'private.'

Fractional reserve isn't fraud - if you sell groceries, do you keep enough flour in stock for ALL your customers to come in and get flour on the same day? No. If you buy an unlimited cell-phone plan, does the cell phone company have to have the capacity for every 'unlimited' customer to use their phone, 24 hours a day? No.

Fractional reserve would happen in a free market, because it is more profitable, and some bank failures would result, though in the long run I imagine an informal industry standard would develop.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Fractional reserve isn't fraud - if you sell groceries, do you keep enough flour in stock for ALL your customers to come in and get flour on the same day? No. If you buy an unlimited cell-phone plan, does the cell phone company have to have the capacity for every 'unlimited' customer to use their phone, 24 hours a day? No.

Your analogies are about as fallacious as they come. A grocery store that does not stock enough flour for everyone to buy is completely different than a fractional reserve bank. Nobody has a claim to any of the flour in the store. In a bank things are entirely different. Everyone who has money in that bank has a claim to it. By standard accounting measures a bank is at all times bankrupt. Its assets are always much less than its liabilities.

I leave figuring out the fallaciousness of the cell-phone analogy to some other reader.

Fractional reserve would happen in a free market, because it is more profitable, and some bank failures would result, though in the long run I imagine an informal industry standard would develop.

Highly unlikely. Someone who is supposed to be getting a degree in economics like yourself ought to know that cartels in the free market are extremely unstable because any individual firm in the cartel benefits from breaking from the cartel.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
It brings you cheaper goods by abusing it's employees, forcing suppliers into a money-losing contracts (by finding that special place where the supplier would lose even more money by not continuing to supply), and myriad other abuses.

Walmart's inventory and distribution systems are brilliant, and certainly contribute to their overall efficiency; they also help secure the market power that lets Walmart get away with murder in other aspects of its business.

The employee abuses are unfortunate, but a contract is a contract.

Interestingly, this is kind of like labor unions like the UAW. They try to force GM into a losing contract where the alternative is a loss of production.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Wow, when Wal-Mart comes out in favor of something you start to wonder.

Seriously tho, CA is considering this exact issue:

SACRAMENTO ? Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is expected to propose a $1 increase in the state's minimum wage after vetoing similar legislature this year, a further indication that he is cultivating a more moderate image as he begins his re-election year.

An aide to the governor said the proposal will be included in Schwarzenegger's State of the State speech on Thursday. Under the plan, the hourly wage would rise from $6.75 to $7.25 in September and to $7.75 in July 2007.

BTW, $4.75/hr is a joke.

Damn few people make minimum wage. The percent of the population that makes minimum wage began dropping right after the last time they raised it. The market is working when it comes wages, so just let minimum wage die.

I could make the inverse argument: If the market is "working" as you claim, then why not leave the minimum wage in place? At least it protects workers from being paid below a minimum threshold. Since the "free market" is exceeding these minimal standards, there is no harm/no foul keeping them in place. Plus it has the added benefit of keeping sweatshops out of our country. (A good thing, IMO)

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Fractional reserve isn't fraud - if you sell groceries, do you keep enough flour in stock for ALL your customers to come in and get flour on the same day? No. If you buy an unlimited cell-phone plan, does the cell phone company have to have the capacity for every 'unlimited' customer to use their phone, 24 hours a day? No.

Your analogies are about as fallacious as they come. A grocery store that does not stock enough flour for everyone to buy is completely different than a fractional reserve bank. Nobody has a claim to any of the flour in the store. In a bank things are entirely different. Everyone who has money in that bank has a claim to it. By standard accounting measures a bank is at all times bankrupt. Its assets are always much less than its liabilities.

I leave figuring out the fallaciousness of the cell-phone analogy to some other reader.

Fractional reserve would happen in a free market, because it is more profitable, and some bank failures would result, though in the long run I imagine an informal industry standard would develop.

Highly unlikely. Someone who is supposed to be getting a degree in economics like yourself ought to know that cartels in the free market are extremely unstable because any individual firm in the cartel benefits from breaking from the cartel.

Informal industry standard just means history would eventually teach banks how much (well, how little) reserve they could hold, and safly conduct a profitable business it's nothing to do with a cartel.

The cellphone analogy is actually pretty accurate - the customers all have a claim on service, 24 hours a day, but the company has sold the service to more people than could actually use it that much. This is very similar to fractional reserve, as a matter of fact.

 

[joshw10]

the minimum wage = the average cost of a fast food value meal

ITS THE FIRST LAW OF ECONOMICS1!!!11

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dahunan
The onlny reason we are talking about this is because America has lost too many higher paying jobs to cheaper international manufacturing

The bulk of jobs lots in manufacturing is to higher productivy, not cheaper offshore labor. Ever year the US makes more product, but does so with fewer people.

I'm going to ask this question every time you talk about how many goods Americans make. Where can I buy American made goods?

 

[dmcanally]

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Where can I buy American made goods?

At the store?

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: dmcanally

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Where can I buy American made goods?

At the store?

Which store?

I have an extremely difficult time finding "Made in USA" goods anywhere around here.

 

[BoberFett]

Until something is done about illegal immigrants working for less than minimum wage, raising minimum wage is nothing but hot air. Want to fill a position for less than the legally required wage? Find a Mexican to do it. They're plentiful, and not going to be deported anytime soon.

 

[dmcanally]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: dmcanally

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Where can I buy American made goods?

At the store?

Which store?

I have an extremely difficult time finding "Made in USA" goods anywhere around here.

IDK, hell what stores do you have? I know I can find American made goods if I needed to.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: techs
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/02/natio...c6e7&hp&ex=1136264400&partner=homepage
States Take Lead in Push to Raise Minimum Wages
Despite Congressional refusal for almost a decade to raise the federal minimum wage, nearly half of the civilian labor force lives in states where the pay is higher than the rate set by the federal government.
Seventeen states and the District of Columbia have acted on their own to set minimum wages that exceed the $5.15 an hour rate set by the federal government, and this year lawmakers in dozens of the remaining states will debate raising the minimum wage. Some states that already have a higher minimum wage than the federal rate will be debating further increases and adjustments for inflation.
The last time the federal minimum wage was raised was in 1997 - when it was increased from $4.75 an hour. Since then, efforts in Congress to increase the amount have been stymied largely by Republican lawmakers and business groups who argued that a higher minimum wage would drive away jobs.
AND
Even the chairman of Wal-Mart has endorsed an increase, saying that a worker earning the minimum wage cannot afford to shop at his stores.

When the minimum wage goes up it lifts virtually all lower paying job wages. And that means Americans can live better lives. Lets all get on board.

Ignorance is bliss. Go ask any economist and they'll tell you raising the minimum wage does absolutely nothing except increase inflation...

 

[dmcanally]

Honestly I think that minimum wage should be left up to the state alone. Aside from that I have no problem with the kids at movie theaters making $5.15 an hour to sell me popcorn. They don?t need $7 an hour when they live with their parents and have the majority of their ?needs? paid for.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dahunan
The onlny reason we are talking about this is because America has lost too many higher paying jobs to cheaper international manufacturing

The bulk of jobs lots in manufacturing is to higher productivy, not cheaper offshore labor. Ever year the US makes more product, but does so with fewer people.

I'm going to ask this question every time you talk about how many goods Americans make. Where can I buy American made goods?

Here is the simple answer. We have a trade defecit of 6% of gdp. That means only 6 of every hundred dollars you spend goes to a foreign good or service. That leaves the other $94 going to american goods and services. So the answer of a store is pretty accurate.

 

[dmcanally]

Originally posted by: charrison
Here is the simple answer. We have a trade defecit of 6% of gdp. That means only 6 of every hundred dollars you spend goes to a foreign good or service. That leaves the other $94 going to american goods and services. So the answer of a store is pretty accurate.

HAHA, sweet... good guess.

 

[Thorny]

Minimum wage was increased one year ago where I live, from 5.65 to 6.00 then to 6.50 now. As an employer, I was forced to either raise prices, lay people off and provide shoddier service, or withhold raises from people that actually deserve them. I ended up raising prices, as most people did, but it really pissed me off that I had to, because the kids I had making minumum wage DID NOT DESERVE MORE!!! They were not living on thier own providing for a family, most were still in school living with thier parents.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: dmcanally

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: dmcanally

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Where can I buy American made goods?

At the store?

Which store?

I have an extremely difficult time finding "Made in USA" goods anywhere around here.

IDK, hell what stores do you have? I know I can find American made goods if I needed to.

Target
Wally-world
Bergner's
JCPenny's
Best Buy
Circuit City
Menards

Typical mall stuff. The only place I find American made goods is Lowe's....

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Informal industry standard just means history would eventually teach banks how much (well, how little) reserve they could hold, and safly conduct a profitable business it's nothing to do with a cartel.

I would have no problem with that as long as the banks disclosed to their customers what they were doing, did not guarantee deposits can be withdrawn at all times, and disclosed the effects (inflation). The current scam would never hold up in the free market.

The cellphone analogy is actually pretty accurate - the customers all have a claim on service, 24 hours a day, but the company has sold the service to more people than could actually use it that much. This is very similar to fractional reserve, as a matter of fact.

No, actually I do not believe cell phone companies guarantee cell phone service 24/7. If they did, anytime you did not have service i.e. because of network repairs or something, you would be able to sue them. I'm almost certain that if you read a terms of service agreement from a cell phone company it will explicity say that they do not guarantee service.

If you contrast that with today's banking system, the banks actually do guarantee your deposits. They have no right to do so because they are at all times bankrupt. In the U.S. we have the FDIC (federal deposit insurance corporation) which is supposed to make sure that if a bank fails all the deposits are paid off. The only catch is that the FDIC itself has only a small fraction of the total bank liabilites. If there was ever a large bank failure the FDIC would not be able to pay off even a small portion of the deposits.

The other aspect of the fraud is inflation. The banks don't tell you that they are watering down your money, making it purchase less and less every year. This brings billions for bankers and nothing but debt and inflation for the rest of us.

As an egalitarian you ought to be appalled at this, for fractional reserve banking hurts the poor guy more than anyone else.

 

[glenn1]

The entire premise of minimum wage is stupid. Those making minimum wage almost by definition are just a warm body who add virtually no value to the economic process. The reason they get low pay is that they have few skill sets of value to an employer, have no work experience, have barriers to full workforce participation (i.e. limited hours due to children, etc), or are deliberately working under their potential (desiring less responsibility, etc) otherwise they'd get paid according to what value they offered their employer which is far higher than minimum wage. The only thing you're doing by raising minimum wage is giving an idiot 16 year old more money to splurge on crap and the rest of us higher costs for products where there is very little value-added process provided by the employee (such as fast food).

Unfortunately, you idiots who sponsor this sort of nonsense have created a situation where the job opportunities for those seeking entry to the workforce at low wage entry-level jobs are pretty much guaranteed to be SOL. If your job can be automated (e.g. self-service checkout lanes, fast food order takers, light industry such as textiles) or outsourced (e.g. data entry, low grade programming ,etc) it will be - unless you have symbolic analysis skills you're toast. Welcome to the world you've created where your well-intentioned efforts have sawed off the bottom rung of the economic ladder for those needing it most, since you've priced those with meager skill sets out of the market.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Informal industry standard just means history would eventually teach banks how much (well, how little) reserve they could hold, and safly conduct a profitable business it's nothing to do with a cartel.

I would have no problem with that as long as the banks disclosed to their customers what they were doing, did not guarantee deposits can be withdrawn at all times, and disclosed the effects (inflation). The current scam would never hold up in the free market.

The cellphone analogy is actually pretty accurate - the customers all have a claim on service, 24 hours a day, but the company has sold the service to more people than could actually use it that much. This is very similar to fractional reserve, as a matter of fact.

No, actually I do not believe cell phone companies guarantee cell phone service 24/7. If they did, anytime you did not have service i.e. because of network repairs or something, you would be able to sue them. I'm almost certain that if you read a terms of service agreement from a cell phone company it will explicity say that they do not guarantee service.

If you contrast that with today's banking system, the banks actually do guarantee your deposits. They have no right to do so because they are at all times bankrupt. In the U.S. we have the FDIC (federal deposit insurance corporation) which is supposed to make sure that if a bank fails all the deposits are paid off. The only catch is that the FDIC itself has only a small fraction of the total bank liabilites. If there was ever a large bank failure the FDIC would not be able to pay off even a small portion of the deposits.

The other aspect of the fraud is inflation. The banks don't tell you that they are watering down your money, making it purchase less and less every year. This brings billions for bankers and nothing but debt and inflation for the rest of us.

As an egalitarian you ought to be appalled at this, for fractional reserve banking hurts the poor guy more than anyone else.

Actually, the 'poor guy' generally is in debt, which means inflation is good for them. And a fractional reserve system ceases to cause inflation once a stable reserve level is made. Most banks require notice for withdrawals over a certain size. I don't know the exact terms of the FDIC, but the CDIC guarantees only the first $60k in cash deposits.

Banks have a lower default rate than even blue chip debt; the safest way to hold cash is in a safety deposit box, though this is no more beneficial in terms of interest payments than stuffing it in your mattress - under a 100% reserve system, banks would make their money from fees and fees only; the less you have, the smaller your expected average transaction size, and the more you would pay (as a percentage of deposits held) in fees. This is not particularly beneficial to the poor, as far as I can tell.

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: thorny169
Minimum wage was increased one year ago where I live, from 5.65 to 6.00 then to 6.50 now. As an employer, I was forced to either raise prices, lay people off and provide shoddier service, or withhold raises from people that actually deserve them. I ended up raising prices, as most people did, but it really pissed me off that I had to, because the kids I had making minumum wage DID NOT DESERVE MORE!!! They were not living on thier own providing for a family, most were still in school living with thier parents.

I can see how that would irk you, having to pay those who were not supporting themselves more. I run a computer shop (which doesn't always get that much work admittedly) and I have only one employee and he is a high school kid, and I watch him blow his money on CDs, fast food, and anything but responsible stuff, but I really can't say much as I was that age only just over a decade ago, and I was buying pot and beer of all things. If someone who was actually having to support themselves came to work for me, I'd pay them better, or at least schedule them more jobs. I think therein lies a half ass solution to your dilemma, scheduling. Just cut out those who are no longer performing their duties responsibly on the schedule, and (if they don't need time home with the kids) give those extra hours to those who have families, rents, bills, etc.

All that said, I am also an employee at a veterinary clinic part time, and I make more than most of the kids I work with, and I hear the grumbling but hell I'm having to hold my life together doing two jobs, most of them only have to gas up their cars with thier checks, and everything else is taken care of. But it's good that the kids have some money in their pockets, that's how we learn to save or at least spend wisely.

 

[LumbergTech]

I can appreciate your situation..but not all young people have parents supporting them..and I find it a little frustrating that an employer thinks they have the right to dictate what a person should be spending their money on (or adjust their wages accordingly)...I think that a person should be paid based on how much their labor is actually worth instead of just being treated like a useless piece of crap..if the profit per unit that they create isnt that great then they cant be paid as much..if the profit is high based on each unit they create then they should be paid more..thats what irks me and makes me demand higher pay is when my employer is just rolling in dough and doesnt give a crap that i am still being paid the same i was 4 years ago when i started, even if i was the number 1 producer in the department..employers seem to have no respect for their employees no matter how hard they try to do the job well

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Actually, the 'poor guy' generally is in debt, which means inflation is good for them. And a fractional reserve system ceases to cause inflation once a stable reserve level is made. Most banks require notice for withdrawals over a certain size. I don't know the exact terms of the FDIC, but the CDIC guarantees only the first $60k in cash deposits.

You don't think lenders know about inflation?

Banks have a lower default rate than even blue chip debt; the safest way to hold cash is in a safety deposit box, though this is no more beneficial in terms of interest payments than stuffing it in your mattress - under a 100% reserve system, banks would make their money from fees and fees only; the less you have, the smaller your expected average transaction size, and the more you would pay (as a percentage of deposits held) in fees. This is not particularly beneficial to the poor, as far as I can tell.

You are catching on. But banks would not just charge fees. They could also continue to do legitimate lending such as certificates of deposit.

The poor guy pays far more in inflation and all the economic distortions that go with it than he would in bank fees. Like I said before, billions for bankers and debt and inflation for the rest of us. One of the greatest periods of economic growth in the U.S. was in the 19th century when the U.S. was on the gold standard and prices actually fell as a result of increases in output. More on that here

 

[Thorny]

Originally posted by: judasmachine

Originally posted by: thorny169
Minimum wage was increased one year ago where I live, from 5.65 to 6.00 then to 6.50 now. As an employer, I was forced to either raise prices, lay people off and provide shoddier service, or withhold raises from people that actually deserve them. I ended up raising prices, as most people did, but it really pissed me off that I had to, because the kids I had making minumum wage DID NOT DESERVE MORE!!! They were not living on thier own providing for a family, most were still in school living with thier parents.

I can see how that would irk you, having to pay those who were not supporting themselves more. I run a computer shop (which doesn't always get that much work admittedly) and I have only one employee and he is a high school kid, and I watch him blow his money on CDs, fast food, and anything but responsible stuff, but I really can't say much as I was that age only just over a decade ago, and I was buying pot and beer of all things. If someone who was actually having to support themselves came to work for me, I'd pay them better, or at least schedule them more jobs. I think therein lies a half ass solution to your dilemma, scheduling. Just cut out those who are no longer performing their duties responsibly on the schedule, and (if they don't need time home with the kids) give those extra hours to those who have families, rents, bills, etc.

I would love to only employ people who were responsilbe or had families, rent, bills, ect.
Of course discrimination is against the law, and in interviews there are certain questions you can't take into consideration(legally anyway). As far as my schedule goes, I must work around my customers schedule, not my employee's. I wish I could give more hours to those that need it, in fact I do, but I still need CHEAP labor for jobs that require little responsiblity or skill. The people I have earning minimum wage have the bare minimum of responsibility and ability.