A Livable Minimum Wage

[Xelasnave.1947]

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.

Where did I say I goofed off...my struggle was fierce even with good luck.

Those who are non-productive should be rewarded to an equal degree to those who were more productive.

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.

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).

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.

but you have to be careful to not remove all incentives for those most likely to be the most productive members of society.

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.

Someone need to innovate, take chances, be creative. You don't tend to get that in a society where all are rewarded equally.

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...

There is little wealth to distribute in an economy that isn't doing well.

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...

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.

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.

Alex

 

[river]

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?

Losses no bonuses .

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

 

[Seattle]

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.

Alex

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.?

 

[Seattle]

Losses no bonuses .

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

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.

 

[river]

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.?

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 .

 

[Seattle]

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 .

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.

 

[river]

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.

The satisfaction is helping people get well .

 

[Seattle]

The satisfaction is helping people get well .

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.

 

[billvon]

Wages effectively sets how many anyone makes.

Well, it doesn't really "set how much anyone makes" - it IS how much someone makes. Wages are what people make at their jobs.

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.

Because such decisions are best handled by the market.

Why don't we just set all wages to what people need?

Because that's impossible to determine for everyone - and it isn't a good goal anyway.

 

[iceaura]

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

If you're responding to me, this general issue and related matters:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Price_of_Inequality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century

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

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.

 

[Vociferous]

Doing nothing is among the wrong things, and like the rest could make things worse or accelerate the problem.

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?

Any numbers or data?

Three. Now four - the number of times the basic economic situation has been described to you.

Descriptions alone are not compelling.

All wage structures price some people out of any given market entirely.

How's that? Wouldn't any given market, aside from the bottom, be willing and able to pay less?

 

[Seattle]

How much should they make when they are taking no more risk than their employees take driving to work?

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.

 

[Seattle]

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.

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

 

[billvon]

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

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.

 

[Vociferous]

Why is economic inequality a problem? Envy? Is the solution to envy capitulation?

 

[iceaura]

Why is economic inequality a problem?

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? Is the solution to envy capitulation?

Envy helps drive the economy - it's a moral and political issue, but it's not the problem with excessive inequality.

 

[iceaura]

"How much should they make when they are taking no more risk than their employees take driving to work?"
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

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.

 

[Vociferous]

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.

A Democrat and a Frenchman. Seems pretty one-sided.
If so many way, maybe you could detail a few?

Envy helps drive the economy - it's a moral and political issue, but it's not the problem with excessive inequality.

Really? People only spend their earnings out of envy?

 

[iceaura]

A Democrat and a Frenchman. Seems pretty one-sided.

There aren't any sides.
Those two belong to different schools of thought.

If so many way, maybe you could detail a few?

Read those first. Then send me on further errands.

Really? People only spend their earnings out of envy?

Excessive inequality, effects of - do try to bear down.

 

[Seattle]

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.

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.