Raising the minimum wage

I will establish an OP that firmly aligns myself with a 10.10$ minimum wage, although in actuality I something closer to 15$. Are there any reasonable arguments against it? And fair warning, I'll likely cross examine you.

 

Minimum wage is a price control that makes the labor market less efficient.

Basic income is a better solution. Minimum wage should be abolished.

 

What is basic income? You mean a salary applied in a lump monthly sum? That's a monthly wage, which can be omitted. The reason minimum skill jobs have minimum wages, is because they need the money in constant intervals to consume, live, and spend. The 50% spends the most money, which produces the most corporate growth. Frankly, your idea sucks and is not well thought out. Or you did a screwy job clarifying.

 

In Southern California during the early 1970s, a married couple, with no children could live on minimum wage, and still put money into their savings account. This required only one of the couple to be employed.

But once Reagan had convinced most of the working people they were overpaid, and that wealth must cycle upward, minimum wage workers quickly fell below the poverty level (and this was even if both the man and wife worked). After twenty or so years, minimum wage workers were joined by lower income families. Reaganomics, and the lopsided policies it spawned, sent many working families into financial trouble.

During the eight years of the Bush/Cheney debacle, middle income workers were crushed by the idiotic actions of a government controlled completely by the GOP.

So, do your best to convince the right-wingers and others who believe minimum wage is too high (or unnecessary) why they are absolutely WRONG.

I must remind you, conservatives and neoconservatives swallowed the Reaganomics scam hook, line, and sinker, and their beliefs have driven soundly into their skulls, so changing that immovable mind set will be a Herculean task.

People of reason wish you luck.

 

You did not give me reason, but instead the republican doctrine. Our economy was at its strongest booms when we raised the wage based on inflation trends. Conservatives have trouble understanding the a USD can actually deflate, or they don't bother resarching on how inflation works. The USD has deflated substantially from where it once was, which means that prices are at a all time low.

John Maynard Keynes taught that in times of economic deflation, that the wallets of the lower classes should be inflated. Hence, increasing the cash flow and corporate growth stimulated into the business world. And as far as I'm concerned, inflation was high during reagans presidency, so he had every right to say that. Inflation is low now, and were the only developed country, besides Russia, that does not match wages to the USD. We are 4$ behind the western world, and are killing consumer boom economics.

If you don't understand basic monetary policy, then get out.

- - - Updated - - -

Please forgive me. I skimmed your post and it turns out you were agreeing with me. Sorry, but I take the blame here. You were stating the republican doctrine first. Again......... sorry

 

I was offering empirical history on a region of the country that has now become one of the areas with the highest cost of living. It was to agree with your stand, and show the experience of many American workers, not limited to those earning minimum wage, how much the income inequality caused by deregulation (remember, it was at Reagan’s insistence the Savings and Loan industry was deregulated, how many American’s life savings were wiped out in that bit of corruption?)

Economics involves far more than simply raising the minimum wage, while it might help those at that income level over the short term, other laws that prevent the mess caused by the last three decades of unsustainable economic policy must be addressed.

While this might be counter to your wishes on this thread, the dire economic issues faced by the average Americans cannot be held to raising the minimum wage alone.

This aside, once again, good luck in your efforts.

 

Forgive me, I wrote an update writing that I skimmed your message, and found you were agreeing with me. As for minimum wages alone, your absolutely right. I don't recall saying the consumer sphere can maintain an economy by itself. Why did you restate that 3 times? In which place did I hint to that? I'm saying that consumer boom economics are something that can easily be implemented, which will produce revenue across the board.

They work, which defeats the conservative premise that high wages hurts companies with narrow profit margins. The congressional research service report that my friend showed me, said that prices will only go up around .40$. So, why do we not already have this implemented? If not a single valid point stands on the conservative position, then I'm left to believe the ignorant support for suppressing corporate and lower bracket growth, is not wanting to lose another to the lefties. Even Mitt Romney changed his stance, saying he now wants a wage based on inflation, which is 10.52 right now.

These people are incredibly ignorant.

 

They have no choice, the brainwashing experienced by the right-wingers has them hating themselves for being the working class, so, it is inevitable they are against any laws or regulations that benefit working people.

If you are a regular on these message boards, you will have read their many posts decrying government regulations that protect workers, consumers, the environment, the poor, and anyone else that is not very rich or Big Business.

The conservatives’ and neoconservatives’ desire is to let the super rich and corporate leaders run the government, abolish all laws that might dip into the bottom line, and then exploit the people and the natural resources until nothing remains.

Any response you receive on this thread will be the same talking points memorized by the rank-and-file Republicans and Teapublicans as to why all average Americans are greedy and overpaid, not just the minimum wage earners.

 

Conservative propaganda has gotten out of control. Almost all talk shows are conservative, the media is conservative, and conservative special interest groups control the government. What SIG's do the democrats have? Tyson chicken? Give me a break. SGI's like big oil, banks, chemical companies, and the NRA stay rich by funding the GOP politicians to regurgitate their corporate propaganda for them.

And don't even get me started about the, "Well, liberal media has a lot of bias also". Any sane man can see the difference between CNN and Fox News,

- - - Updated - - -

My point is that the rich and special interest groups plague the republican party. It once stood for something realistic, but if ever elected into power, will turn us into a complete oligarch. The fate that is ever so evident in Russia.

 

Surely you aren't insinuating that Democrats don't have just as much "rich" and "special interest" associations as the Republican party?!?

 

During our brief back-and-forth on this thread, you may have noticed no one, especially right-wingers, has dared try and debate you on the minimum wage issue.

Yes, there has been one parroting the usual GOP blather, but not one with any actual facts.

This is the normal reaction when conservatives and neoconservatives are asked for factual answers on any of their pet issues. The best they will offer will be quotes or videos from FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, or some other right wing source of nonsense.

 

On a broad level, I think the GOP's policy on protecting the rich has earned them plenty of corporate influence, in big business. Banks, Oil, Energy, and Rich sharecroppers find their way to the GOP pool. How loud has the NRA been. Here's an idea. Name some specific SIG's and I'll topple yours two-fold. Should be fun!

 

Ha, so true. Conservatives never debate me, because in all honesty, they don't understand economics. Its complete denial of macro trends, so in reality, no logical and/or rational argument can be based against it. They might make some lame argument like.....

"Higher wages create a society of entitlements"

But all I need to do is mention monetary inflation a couple of times and they'll shut up.

 

Swiss voters have just rejected implementing a minimum wage, FYI:

http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/18/news/economy/switzerland-minimum-wage-vote/index.html?iid=s_mpm

 

Do Switzerland voters follow USD inflation? No, as the swiss economy relies on institutionalism, which works for a country their size. The USD value is incredibly deflated, which means low wage workers need to be incredibly inflated. Understand? Leave it to a fool to use Swiss macroeconomics as a viable argument against American ones.

 

Is the income inequality in Switzerland as great as that in the U.S.? Does the Swiss government invade nations around the world? Are the Swiss people as diverse as those in the U.S.? Is there the poverty and homelessness in Switzerland that there is here in the U.S.?

Any solutions the GOP/TP and the right-wingers offer up can only increase the income gap in the U.S. Those solutions always involve lower wages and increasing corporate profits.

 

My only problem with raising the minimum wage is that I'm not sure that it'll work, or that even if it does work in the short-term and give the working class a boost in demographic purchasing power, it's still only a short-term solution and that purchasing power will even out with the inevitable inflation. Retailers just raise the cost of goods whenever they think they can get away with it. In the long-term, it seems like it could cause more problems for the working class than it would solve.

The goal of economically empowering the working class is a good and necessary one. I'm just not sure that raising the minimum wage will actually do it. Could just be a feel-good solution that scores political points. I'm honestly not sure.

 

No, because Switzerland has a safety net to catch people. But they don't order businesses around like people like you want to. Switzerland has always relied on good business policy to remain wealthy, since they don't have much in the way of their own resources. The key to good business is to stop trying to tell them how to run it, and let the people who take the financial risk of running it do what they must to make as much as possible.

There is a difference between corporatism, and free market capitalism.

 

The congressional research service reports show that purchasing parity is NOT a concern, or should it be one. Its actually corporations and the lower class who benefit, as consumer booms create mutual inflation. Inflation will always come back inevitably, so setting rates based on said inflation, harms no one. What you do not understand, is that deflation FORCES prices to come down. Companies can't raise prices to match the new minimum wage as a direct result of a loss in the dollar value.Follow the below flow chart....

1. Prices lower
2. Wages increase
3. Consumer spends more
4 Corporations grow more
5. Prices increase
6. Wages decrease
7. Rinse and Repeat

Its basic keynesian my friend, and frankly, your argument makes no sense whatsoever. But kudos for trying.

 

Why do the prices lower?

 

Once again you fool, Swiss macroeconomics do NOT apply to American ones. The incompetence. Switzerland does have a minimum wage by the way, and if it didn't, then employers would collectively set low wage prices. Monetary trends make it clear that when prices are low the lower class is best inflating. It consumption boom, and your beloved Mitt Romney and Reagan were its biggest advocates. Its not rocket science man.

- - - Updated - - -

As the dollar value decreases so do prices. A inflated dollar causes prices to raise. Advantages exist for both outcomes, but at the moment, deflation is our future.

 

You don't "collectively" set lower wages, you set wages to be competitive with other firms.

Also no they don't. There are minimum compensation agreements, but these are achieved through voluntary collective bargaining, not through law. As it should be.

And I don't care what you think is best, I don't see why it's the job of the government to decide what the price of anything should be (wages are prices of labour).

 

That would mean wages are the only thing that makes a firm competitive. Which they are not. And the fate of the 50% of americans in lower brackets would be put upon you proving the highly inane assertion that competitive wages determine the overall success of a company. We have competitive wages in place now, ussually between 7 and 10$, and its still not working. Even if wages were competitive without a minimum, I can easily see them being between 1-3$, as you don't want a minimum.

You economic anarchists are literally the stupidest scum alive. Tell me, how will you prevent the corporate deficit that will arise as a result?

 

SIGS's? You gotta tell me what an SIG is before we play tennis with it. LOL!

 

What? I didn't say that. I say wages factor into how competitive you are. It may be more competitive to pay more for more skilled workers to outproduce your competition and their low-wage, low-skill competitors. It depends on the sector, the product, and the firm's individual situation.

Basically all a minimum wage does is redistribute the low wages that would go to some people into the pockets of other people - the people who pay them, the consumers that buy the products they make, and their fellow employees if their own position is eliminated. Some people WILL be better off, but others will be worse off and everything is made less efficient. So you might as well simply lets things settle as they should naturally be.

What is your definition of "working", BTW? Wages don't "solve" anything, wages are the price of labour and like any other price they are a subjective value that the buyer and seller each make. There's nothing to "solve".

I'm not a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) anarchist, I simply don't see why the powers that be should be allowed to tell people how they're allowed to run every aspect their business. WTF is a corporate deficit anyway? You're making up jargon.