will removing minimum wage accelerate job growth?

[Red Dawn]

Don't be silly, I can be the richest mofo on the planet and walk through the ghetto with front teeth made of gold wearing a Rolex and a pimp hat and be completely unmolested. So long as I have a gun.

 

[Craig234]

I'm about as pro-capitalist as they come but I don't see a benefit in removing the minimum wage. All it would mean is a greater need for government assistance for people that hold jobs with ridiculously low salaries.

In capitalism, the lower the wage, the more profitable for the owner - on a small scale at least, ignoring the need for consumers to have money to buy.

The closer to zero, the better, down to the point workers have just enough to eat.

This is the short-term oligarchy - a few people owning huge percentages of a small pie.

But this is how it's usually gone - hence, plenty of 'cheap labor' to build pyramids, or fill armies for conquest or defense, or grow the food for the elite to meet that basic food need.

In Haiti right now, I was just listening to some recent history, all about the minimum wage. Colonies are wanted for up to two things - cheap labor and cheap resources.

For Haiti, it's cheap labor, with a lot of companies setting up factories, paying slave wages/$2 a day.

Their government wanted to raise the minimum wage - which would push neighboring other countries to raise it. Te corporations strongly opposed this, and therefore the US government did.

Aristide was removed, it was said, primarily over the minimum wage, by the first Bush. Years later, Clinton reinstated him with a lot of conditions, one was to not raise the minimum wage.

Then Bush 43 removed him for similar reasons.

There's an army of propagandists against the minmium wage, because powerful people profit from not having one, or lowering it at least.

 

[Craig234]

Your's is a road to serfdom. In a country with forcefully defended private ownership, there is always the assumed threat of force or eviction. Although you cannot physically force someone into a labor agreement with you, you can do so with economic coercion which ultimately results in physical coercion (if I can't pay my mortgage, my bank will forcefully kick me from my home and because land is privately owned and defended either by the landowner or an instrument of the state, I cannot sustain myself on nature's bounty without the risk of further force being applied). Economic coercion in this case is simply implied physical force at some point down the line.

You shouldn't pretend that people enter into these economic arrangements completely voluntarily. It would be like feudal Lords claiming that the men in their army fought voluntarily, even if not fighting meant getting kicked off their land and starvation for their family. I always thought this was a serious flaw with right-Libertarianism.

Welll said. That was the history of the 19th century, which led to the revolt that made the modern society.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

But Im wondering if we somehow became a blue collar labor type industrial cojntry like we were until the 60's or so if you would think of us as "hollow" and "parasitical"?

When I say "hollow" and "parasitical" I'm not referring to having blue-collar labor, but rather to what is driving the need for that labor. Is that labor working because there is a demand for goods and services in that nation itself--are they producing the wealth for domestic consumption--or are they primarily producing the goods and services for the benefit of people in other countries? Is there a healthy market for those goods and services domestically to where they would still work even if their nation no longer engaged in international trade, or does that nation have a "hollow" economy where citizens aren't consuming the value of what's getting produced? By "parasitical" I was referring to living off of another nation's demands for goods and services.

In other words, is it domestic economic activity which spurs the need for the production of goods and services? Does the nation's economy work to where people would produce and consume goods and services if the nation were isolated? Can the nation have a self-sufficient economy? Why can't China just produce goods and services for Chinese consumption only while raising the Chinese standard of living by having Chinese consume the wealth that's produced? That's what I'm trying to get at.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I'm about as pro-capitalist as they come but I don't see a benefit in removing the minimum wage. All it would mean is a greater need for government assistance for people that hold jobs with ridiculously low salaries.

I don't think I've said it yet in this thread, but I agree with (who was it, GeneX?) that the minimum wage issue really shouldn't be that large of an issue. Instead we should focus our attention on ways to improve the economy so that it really isn't an issue any longer so that if we didn't have a minimum wage at all the supply of and demand for labor would result in wages that are higher than the minimum wage anyway.

 

[Xellos2099]

Why do you think China and India's industry have grow so quickly? Because they don't have such a thing call Union, Minimum Wage, and retirement benefit.

 

[blackangst1]

When I say "hollow" and "parasitical" I'm not referring to having blue-collar labor, but rather to what is driving the need for that labor. Is that labor working because there is a demand for goods and services in that nation itself--are they producing the wealth for domestic consumption--or are they primarily producing the goods and services for the benefit of people in other countries? Is there a healthy market for those goods and services domestically to where they would still work even if their nation no longer engaged in international trade, or does that nation have a "hollow" economy where citizens aren't consuming the value of what's getting produced? By "parasitical" I was referring to living off of another nation's demands for goods and services.

In other words, is it domestic economic activity which spurs the need for the production of goods and services? Does the nation's economy work to where people would produce and consume goods and services if the nation were isolated? Can the nation have a self-sufficient economy? Why can't China just produce goods and services for Chinese consumption only while raising the Chinese standard of living by having Chinese consume the wealth that's produced? That's what I'm trying to get at.

Gotcha. Well, sorry to say, its not that way anymore. As Ive said in other threads (me posing as Captain Obvious) is the world is getting smaller every day, and each country is becoming more interdependant on each other every day. Like it or not thats how it is.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Why do you think China and India's industry have grow so quickly? Because they don't have such a thing call Union, Minimum Wage, and retirement benefit.

Or maybe it's because they are still at a low absolute level of productivity, and are now being aided by an influx of western capital fleeing the high wage markets that created the capital in the first place.

 

[nobodyknows]

Why do you think China and India's industry have grow so quickly? Because they don't have such a thing call Union, Minimum Wage, and retirement benefit.

Why do you think so much of China and India are nothing but shitholes?

 

[nobodyknows]

I swear, greed must somehow shut off people's logic processors. Even if eliminating the minimum wage created jobs they would be jobs that can't support a family so all we would end up with is more people needing welfare in order to feed themselves and their families. Then the same people who are complaining about minimum wage would be complaining about their taxes and all the welfare people sucking off the goverments teat.

 

[3chordcharlie]

I swear, greed must somehow shut off people's logic processors. Even if eliminating the minimum wage created jobs they would be jobs that can't support a family so all we would end up with is more people needing welfare in order to feed themselves and their families. Then the same people who are complaining about minimum wage would be complaining about their taxes and all the welfare people sucking off the goverments teat.

They should have thought about how much things cost before they were born in such an expensive country. I don't see why the laziness of the working class should be my problem.

 

[gingermeggs]

no it won't

 

[gingermeggs]

I swear, greed must somehow shut off people's logic processors. Even if eliminating the minimum wage created jobs they would be jobs that can't support a family so all we would end up with is more people needing welfare in order to feed themselves and their families. Then the same people who are complaining about minimum wage would be complaining about their taxes and all the welfare people sucking off the goverments teat.

Yes lets all be drones that support 3chord charlies, fat, little grub, spawn. fuck em! lets all just play cards in the canteen' shed for a while.

 

[Red Dawn]

Why do you think China and India's industry have grow so quickly? Because they don't have such a thing call Union, Minimum Wage, and retirement benefit.

Because the workers there are content to live in mud huts and shit in the street.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Why do you think China and India's industry have grow so quickly? Because they don't have such a thing call Union, Minimum Wage, and retirement benefit.

...and they are very price competitive with other nations as a result.

But you have to ask, "what good are the jobs" if the standard of living provided by them is still low? What good are the jobs if the wealthy owners of the capital are keeping most of the value of a worker's contribution to the act of wealth production? Sure--their economy can grow--by "racing to the bottom".

Is that what we want for ourselves in the United States?

 

[irishScott]

I know how to fix it. Just put a cap on amount any single person can earn per employment, from CEO's to the Mcdonalds worker. No saleries, only an hourly wage. Then a capped year end bonus for all emplyees IF company funds can provide.
So a company could make a fortune but must be forced to pay out capped wages to every person and all other income for the company goes to things like R&D, Ads...etc.
So instead of min. wage, we would have max. wage. Sounds more efficient to reverse it since there is no limit one could make, may even force dropping of prices for alot of stuff too.

probably wouldnt work, but sounds good on paper. CEO's could then afford to hire more employees since they could not take...i mean make any more money.

Seriously. If I ever get a large company going, I'm making sure no one can make more than 150k/year including bonuses so long as the company can remain competitive. That's more than enough for a family of four to live comfortably at present. Let alone with dual incomes.

 

[hal2kilo]

They should have thought about how much things cost before they were born in such an expensive country. I don't see why the laziness of the working class should be my problem.

Taps sarcasim meter.

 

[blackangst1]

Seriously. If I ever get a large company going, I'm making sure no one can make more than 150k/year including bonuses so long as the company can remain competitive. That's more than enough for a family of four to live comfortably at present. Let alone with dual incomes.

With a financial goal like that, depending on what you mean by "large", you will have trouble retaining people.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Yes lets all be drones that support 3chord charlies, fat, little grub, spawn. fuck em! lets all just play cards in the canteen' shed for a while.

I haven't the foggiest clue of what you just said.

 

[Craig234]

Seriously. If I ever get a large company going, I'm making sure no one can make more than 150k/year including bonuses so long as the company can remain competitive. That's more than enough for a family of four to live comfortably at present. Let alone with dual incomes.

The thing to remember is your compesation is largely driven by industry norms, so you underpay, you lose people, you overpay you 'lose money'.

Liberals cal this 'the market'.

Right-wingers call this 'the market' while wearing robes, chanting, on their knees worshipping.

 

[irishScott]

The thing to remember is your compesation is largely driven by industry norms, so you underpay, you lose people, you overpay you 'lose money'.

Liberals cal this 'the market'.

Right-wingers call this 'the market' while wearing robes, chanting, on their knees worshipping.

Like I said, assuming the company can stay competitive. Regardless I'll make sure they don't get truly outlandish (ie: hundred thousand dollar "bonuses"). It will be a very serious issue.

 

[blackangst1]

Like I said, assuming the company can stay competitive. Regardless I'll make sure they don't get truly outlandish (ie: hundred thousand dollar "bonuses"). It will be a very serious issue.

I think youre definition of big and mine differ. IMHO big would be multi-billion dollar companies. In which case a $100,000 bonus would be pittance, and as relevant as how much you spend on toilet paper annually. I guess if you had a small company with income around 1-5 million, that could be excessive.