A Livable Minimum Wage

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

  1. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Where did I say I goofed off...my struggle was fierce even with good luck.
    Yes I say exactly that.
    So I play the guitar not as well as others does that mean I should not play at all.
    What is wrong with equality of distribution of resources.
    Do you think when the poor French revolted they had in mind a better system.
    The revolt came before any concern that the system destroyed would require replacement.
    No matter how you try you will never remove the incentives of those who want more..their incentive is to have more and lack or availability of opportunity wont change their drive in the slightest.
    This notion of making it easy to make wealth need not be considered for those determined to accumulate will do so in the worst conditionns...look at a terrible prison someone will offer rats for food and profit against all odds.
    I do not agree.
    I would as others would strive to achieve irrespective of reward...it is satifying to do well and not all respond to financial incentive.
    And in a different world could simple achievement not be the driver and the respect that simple achievement would generate in others.
    Think of a musician ..rarely driven by reward but by the desire to do his thing.
    Money may follow but I doubt say the Beatles ever set off to make fortunes...the fortunes came but went not necessary for them to wish to perform at their best.
    My best friend started a dirt bike magazine..his drive was no more than wanting to do it...it became most sucessful and drove a seperate advertising business...he was never into the money it flowed just because he was following his desire...
    Does it matter when those at the bottom have nothing...their situation wont change irrespective of wealth being created or not...they miss out either way...
    That is what you are supposed to say but you serve the rich talking their talk and yet I ask have you really thought about this from your position ..not theirs.

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. river

    Losses no bonuses .

    If it takes a small percentage of your salary , and the owners too , to help the business survive , sure .
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Why would I be speaking for the rich?

    If you are a doctor and you make the same amount of money where you see 5 people a day or 20 people a day, many will just see 5 people a day.

    That was the situation regarding a friend's father. My friend come to the U.S. from Norway to go to grad school. His father, a doctor in Norway, ultimately moved to the U.S. because he would make more money if he worked harder here. In Norway, there was no incentive.

    Muscians may produce music regardless of income. Plumbers will not. Construction workers will not.

    A high pressure corporate saleman will help build houses rather than do high pressure sales. A software engineer will teach high school rather than work 12 days at Microsoft.

    People won't mortgage their houses, borrow money from relatives to start a business if they won't make any more money than their employees.

    Yes, of course the proletariat wasn't thinking during the French Revolution. Are you promoting the idea of not thinking?

    You are arguing against all evidence that people do respond to incentives, otherwise, Russian, Cuba, Vietnam, etc. would be nirvanas and we would all be moving there. Why is "everyone" moving to the U.S.?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Many business do have profit sharing. Some larger companies do it though contributions to 401K plans. Smaller companies do it as you suggest.

    What you are arguing, as opposed to what this thread is about or as opposed to what Xelasnave is talking about, is that you want "more" money. You either get more directly tied to profits or you get more than some other jobs pay or whatever.

    It doesn't make how you arrive at your salary as long as it's competitive with what others doing a similar job get. Anything you get ultimately came from profits or you wouldn't have a job.

    The point is, an employee should be more concerned with being productive and contributing toward the profitability of the company. The company isn't your enemy. You are the company.

    If you want to argue about those at the top of a large corporation making too much money, that's a valid argument but it's not necessarily a simple argument.
  8. river

    From what I understand , correct my if I'm wrong , but in Europe , doctors are not in the profession to make money in the first place . They get in the profession to help people not make money .
  9. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    You're wrong. Everyone hopes to find some personal satisfaction in their jobs (not everyone finds it however) but everyone also works because they need money. That's the same. All over the world.
  10. river

    The satisfaction is helping people get well .
  11. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    The satisfaction to being a waitress is seeing people enjoy their meal but they don't do it for any reason other than money.

    I think some people in this thread are arguing about a world that doesn't exist but that you wish existed. There isn't a place where this world that you are describing actually, currently exists.

    I have a close friend who is 35, a medical doctor. She is from Slovakia. She went to medical school there. As soon as she graduated she moved to the U.S. where she makes 5 times as much money as she would in Slovakia.

    She works part-time by choice and travels for fun every other month. She isn't a surgeon, has little job related stress. She has no debt from school as her government paid for it all. She practices internal medicine so really, most patients would be the same whether they saw her or not.

    She works in a hospital at night because there is less to do and the pay is even higher.

    This is how the world actually works.
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Well, it doesn't really "set how much anyone makes" - it IS how much someone makes. Wages are what people make at their jobs.
    Because such decisions are best handled by the market.
    Because that's impossible to determine for everyone - and it isn't a good goal anyway.
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    If you're responding to me, this general issue and related matters:

    Notice that there is no question of enforced "equality" - enforced "equality" is one of the ways of screwing up. That's not the goal. The goal is forestalling one of the ways capitalism self-destructs. Any economy is in part a commons, or organization of commons, and the Tragedy of the Commons applies - everybody equally miserable is miserable, too much inequality at the expense of the common good crashes the system.
    How much should they make when they are taking no more risk than their employees take driving to work?

    The answer to the question of what people deserve is not going to handle the problem.
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2018
  14. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    The law of inertia would seem at odds with that. Something about things tending to stay the same unless acted on.
    So doing something or nothing have the same risk?
    Descriptions alone are not compelling.
    How's that? Wouldn't any given market, aside from the bottom, be willing and able to pay less?
  15. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    When the incentives for risking capital for business are reduced you will soon see how untrue that statement is when no one chooses to start a new business.
  16. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Setting a minimum wage isn't a good goal either nor is using it as a social problem for the mentally challenged.
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    That's fine if you believe that. Personally I think it is merely one of many tools that can be used to help reduce the gap between rich and poor - neither a panacea that solves poverty, nor a disease to be avoided at all costs.
  18. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Why is economic inequality a problem? Envy? Is the solution to envy capitulation?
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    If too high, it fucks up the entire economy fifty different ways, and destroys democratic governance as it goes.

    Three or four ways mentioned above, and two major books linked in post 130. Happy reading.
    Envy helps drive the economy - it's a moral and political issue, but it's not the problem with excessive inequality.
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2018
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    It's a question: if you justify high profits on the basis of risk, what should they be when there is little or no risk ? That is often the case, after all.
  21. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    A Democrat and a Frenchman. Seems pretty one-sided.
    If so many way, maybe you could detail a few?
    Really? People only spend their earnings out of envy?
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    There aren't any sides.
    Those two belong to different schools of thought.
    Read those first. Then send me on further errands.
    Excessive inequality, effects of - do try to bear down.
  23. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    What business has little to no risk? If that were the case everyone would start a business. Profits are lower in low risk industries. Grocery stores are low risk and the profit margins are minuscule.

    That's also an industry that pays lower wages and minimum wages in some cases. There is still risk. When margins are lower, even a small risk is costly. There is risk in any business. There is the risk that employees don't show up, steal from you, customers go to grocery stores with even cheaper prices, your rent goes up but your sales aren't going up. Employee health care costs go up.

    The market place tends to keep profits from being historically high as there will just be more entrants into that market.

Share This Page