Minimum Wage

The market should always determine the wages of unskilled workers, but that does not mean that their wages could not be subsidized to make it possible for them to work and thrive.

 

Why should they? The rich have been taking advantage of the poor, since the dawn of capitalism.

 

Why is that? Employment at the will of either party, is the law. Don't be illegal to the law.

 

Volunteers are quite often people that need a job to be active in our economy.

If someone volunteers to work for nothing, more power to them. It's a free country, right?

But if they need $3.50/hr to meet their needs, and someone wants to pay them $3.50/hr, suddenly it's no longer a free country... And you're OK with that?

 

There should never be a check for anyone able to work who chooses to remain idle because wages are for workers - not for the able idle.

 

If someone gave you their money will you be thriving? Or, will you continue to live in a way that allows money to disappear no matter how much you have? Dependent on the next payment, knowing you are addicted to it like drugs, and resenting the very people providing the money because of your need, sacrificing you pride to get it?

To thrive, you have to be self sufficient, not living off some kind of unearned dole. Supplemental income over the value you produce IS welfare, and a person who needs to be subsidized- and accepts that- will never, never thrive. He is dependent, and that means he is owned by a system with the power to control his quality of life.
If you can't cut it on your own, you can't cut it. The factors that make that difference reside solely in the person themselves, not the world at large.

Thriving is an internal thing, knowing that you can stand alone, knowing that no man owns you, and being able to genuinely credit yourself for your accomplishments, because they are truly yours. It's power over your own life, genuine freedom. Nobody can give you that- but taking what you haven't earned will insure you can't give it to yourself.

 

Not when social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour by comparison. Subsidizing the rich at the expense of the poor, is not very moral.

 

lol. There should be no tax breaks for employers who have openings but don't fill them.

 

The number of openings depends on the market wage.

 

It is a bit simpler than that. It does take, at a minimum, a living wage for an otherwise independent adult.


“thrive” in American English
verb [ I ] US /θrɑɪv/

to grow, develop, or be successful:

She seems to thrive on hard work.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/thrive

 

it also depends on the requirements for the Firm.

 

only the right wing is that cognitively dissonant. how does one Thrive economically on means tested welfare for the Poor? Means tested corporate welfare for the rich, lets Them keep their multimillion dollar bonuses, to help them thrive.

 

Unfilled jobs cost the U.S. economy $160 billion a year
http://fortune.com/2014/11/18/unfilled-jobs-us-economy/

 

So if you sneak over and put extra gas in your neighbors car each night, he will think he has become the most fuel efficient driver in town? No thriving is what YOU accomplish, not what somebody else does for you at their expense.

 

Theoretically, we could then just close the factories and stores, send everyone a nice paycheck, and we would all be "thriving."
If we are going to pay $15 for $10 in productivity, why not just give it all away?

 

The laws of demand and supply work; only the right wing prefers to be illegal to the laws of demand and supply; but, blame the Poor.

 

We have a First World economy. Paying fifteen is a new Standard, that is all. A cost of living adjustment.

 

My neighbor would thrive on my generosity, but it would not happen unless there was some substantial benefit for me.

 

The requirements of employers, including individuals, and organizations, as well as firms, determine the market wage in a free market.

 

$15.00/hr was decides on onby who? People that don't have to pay it.

Liberals and politicians are always generous with other people's money.

 

Spreading hogwash does not clean the windows or improve anyone's understanding of reality, daniel.
The freemarket runs on supply and demand; socialism wants to make that into demand with no consideration for the supply, either in volume or source. This is why it genetically and fatally flawed.

 

And if you are the town baker paying your help $10 and are forced to pay them $15 without a proportionate increase in productivity, you must raise the price of bread to cover the increase in cost of producing it, (there is no choice here, it must happen) and your employees will be buying the bread at a higher price, paying the price that covers their increase in wages.

Now this is simple logic and math, you don't need a degree in economics to see the fact of it. So now- the help makes $15, but the cost of living have risen in the identical proportion- which means nothing has changed at all except the illusion they are making more. As soon as they realize they are not living better, they complaints will start all over again.

 

I do not believe that the k-12 system we have today is so good that new teachers can learn pedagogy by osmosis alone.

I don't agree that current schools are so good that coursework in pedagogy is unnecessary for teachers. For prospective teachers, pedagogy is a foundation of their chosen field. Suggesting they don't really need to study it just doesn't pass the sniff test. I agree that someone could become a teacher in a k-12 school today without having done so. But, that sounds like something that should be considered a problem.

Yes, college is a little different. In fact, one of the objectives of college is to develop the ability to learn on one's own. Methods used in college are changing, because of the work being done on effective methods in education. BTW, those who earn a phd in science have had to demonstrate that they can advance understanding in their field of study beyond that which is known today. That's well beyond anything that would happen in a classroom. Course requirements end years before a phd would be conferred.

 

It's been done as a practical joke. The neighbor brags on his new mileage and the supplement keeps building it, bragging on it. After a few weeks, the process is reversed, and some gas is sucked out of his tank each night, dropping his apparent mileage dramatically, and soon he is mad at the car for failing him.

I think people's perception is not unlike this; they get excited about one perception of reality that shifts blame for something, and either become angry or happy depending on who and what is manipulated. Mob mentality sometimes, by people not as sharp and skeptical as they need to be. That characteristic is being cultivated and grown everyday- for the purpose of political manipulation.

 

One significant problem with this logic is that bread is a small component of the cost of living. Another is that very few seconds of minimum wage work touch a loaf of bread.

Your argument has to include a broader picture than that.

It even has to include the fact that having people be able to pay their own way means less taxes, and that higher income among those barely able to live on their wages means more money is being spent in the economy.