A Livable Minimum Wage

Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by scheherazade, Jan 6, 2018.

  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Do away with it? No. Help with it? Yes.
    No. It was an example. It might be 4% to .2%. But since far more goes into inflation than minimum wage, that's order-of-magnitude.
    Doing something is a risk. Doing nothing is a risk. Wise people trade off those two options.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Is an extra .40/hr significant?
    More jobs, making the finite labor pool more valuable, would also help poverty.
    No convincing without some actual numbers.
    Doing the wrong thing is a greater risk than either.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    I don't doubt that almost no one is that dumb. I know that some are. I just don't think talking about the minimum wage is particularly relevant here in this context.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    It effectively sets how much such people make, so there is some relevance.
  8. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Or it prices those people we "rarely see" right out of jobs.
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Refusal to consider evidence is not a good reason for inaction. Anecdotal evidence is reason for investigation, and informs discussion.
    No, I don't. I'm sorry that even rereading does not help you.
    Doing nothing is almost certainly among the wrong things - there's obviously a growing problem.
    As explained to you three times now: because the income increase is specific to some and delivered entire, while the price increase is partial and spread widely.
    All wage structures do that. It's a problem with wages, in general.
    No evidence appears for that unlikely claim.
  10. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Wages effectively sets how many anyone makes. Why don't we have mid-tier guaranteed wages for college graduates or upper-tier guaranteed wages for those who need to be able to retire in a few years.

    Why don't we just set all wages to what people need?
  11. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    I agree.
    If you're not interested in clarifying, I'll just have to run with that.
    Not when doing the wrong thing could make it worse or accelerate the problem.
    Any numbers or data?
    Only a minimum wage prices some people out of the job market entirely.
    Anyone with more skills can always find work for less.
  12. river

    For example ?
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Doing nothing is among the wrong things, and like the rest could make things worse or accelerate the problem.
    Three. Now four - the number of times the basic economic situation has been described to you.
    All wage structures price some people out of any given market entirely.
    Setting a minimum, or floor, is much different from setting wages. Conceptually different.
  14. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    What about setting a maximum earning rate.
    Say a ceiling of 10 million a year for a start and anything that is over goes directly to tax...
    I wonder why such an idea will be seen as an enconomy wrecking idea.
    Or a 2% turnover tax...which apparently would replace all taxation...if it would it seems some one does not pay a fair share in tax.
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    The US has had income tax brackets that paid 90% rates, in the past. The economy ran just fine.
  16. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    I someti.es wonder if that rage in the streets is misdirected..it is between lower classes between two groups both who would be better off if they focused attention on the reason there are arguements at a lower level.
    It seems to me their rage should not be at Trump but directed at the real problem ...inequality.
    We can accept in equality in the animal world seeing the strongest male as having the exclusive right to mates and yet we accept that one human can monopolise wealth as if they have a right to do so...surely this right is unfounded in a modern civilized world.
    When those on the street realise Trump is not the problem will the multotude revolt and cast out the elite in similar fashion to the French revolution ot to a similar degree the revolt in Russia.
    It seems even the very rich are uncomfortable that they are caught up in the greed of folk just like them.
    And today if it starts in one country it could go world wide for finally the oppressed group denied of wealth is the young and if they unite for change the change will be brutal and will not respect the borders of countries.
  17. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    What do we mean by "inequality"? Inequality of outcome or inequality of opportunity or inequality under the law?
  18. river

    Inequality of share the wealth .
  19. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Does that mean that if I have a job and you have a job that we should make the same amount?
  20. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    I think inequality extends far beyond the visions imagined when the word presents.

    But for me I think the inequality of luck is the specific area to take on board.
    If you are not lucky you do not count...there is a majority of unlucky folk who will at a point group and change their luck.

    They are young and they are starting to disrespect the system.

    For example I have been a rather wild character but for whatever reason I slid on by.. .my luck was good.

    Others doing similar and with luck not on their side find activities similar to mine produced a life changing result.

    Bad luck too bad you no longer count.

    I have done many things without accident.

    Many faced similar situations yet luck favoured me and was harse on others. Inequality creeps in.

    The Vietnam war saw Australians go in a lottery to determine who would go and who would not...I was lucky and yet a chap I met during the show got called up and lost his leg and relegated to a life less than mine...and of course no one cared.

    Someone should.

    And then there is the non existent quality of all having equal opportunity but some attend a private school wherein not only will they receive a better education but join a club of old school boys who will protect only their own.

    So you went to my old school..trust me you have the job... this happens and it is wrong.

    Inequality exists thru design and yet those who claim they made their fortune unassisted ignore these simple fundamentals.

    Sure an exceptional person lucks out and climbs high but winning the lottery will see more folk evade in equality than a maverick beating the system of exclusion because of school or social background.

    And having arrived at a place of comfort and wealth those folk look down on others and regard those of less luck and opportunity as simple failures.

    The term inequality should not even exist in civilized society as inequality should not exist.

    No human should enjoy more than any other in terms of education, health or wealth.

    But the mob is moving...they are young they are wondering why they are denied the fundamentals and they will not accept the inequality, they will simply tear everything apart...

    Think french revolution...the same arogance now infects the very rich they have no compassion or recognition that the people have no cake and importantly are happy to kill those who they see as the arogant rich.

    And yet nothing will change the rich will not change and as each day goes by they seek even more priviledge and power.

    And they fool themselves and fail to see the pot is boiling ready to explode.

    Inequality cant be fixed by those controling power, they wont, they cant and the opportunity will be taken away as they lose their heads.
    Who in priveledge and power in France thought anything needed to be changed.

    I talk to many people on a intimate level and say the dissatisfaction grows and the cheapness of the toys provided is not doing a thing to placate their swelling anger.

  21. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    It isn't one-sided however. You are implying that you goofed off while others did not and yet things turned out alright for you but did not for others who goofed off.

    You are implying that personal responsibility should play no role. Those who are non-productive should be rewarded to an equal degree to those who were more productive.

    Sure, the disaffected can tear the system down but you can't eat the golden egg. After you tear down the system if you don't build a better system you are even worse off (but feel better for a moment in time).

    The changes that could productively be made are any that give better representation in the political process to the average citizen. Universal education and health care come to mind as well as some financial safety net under the system can also be productive.

    Wealth will never be and shouldn't be equally distributed. Society can decided to tinker with how wealth is accumulated from generation to generation or limits on wealth accumulation within a lifetime but you have to be careful to not remove all incentives for those most likely to be the most productive members of society.

    Someone need to innovate, take chances, be creative. You don't tend to get that in a society where all are rewarded equally. There is little wealth to distribute in an economy that isn't doing well.

    The economies claiming to be the most egalitarian are generally those with the least wealth and the most under performing economies.

    Again, you have to take harmful personality traits out of the decision making process. Jealousy of someone else's wealth can just reduce everyone's wealth. That serves no one.
  22. river


    What I was referring to is the business owner . Share the wealth is about profits .

    Such as bonuses at the end of the year , especially 3wks before christmas .
  23. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    OK, so you are fine with making a lower salary and then getting some part of the profits when there are profits and having a lower salary when the profits are lower or when there are losses.

    When there are losses would you then give back some small percentage of your salary as well?

    How much profit should an owner make for the risk they are taking?

Share This Page