Minimum Wage Solution

Not necessarily.

Under this current economy, there simply aren't enough people in my industry. As such, labor rates for these individuals has been rising.

People that have skills, hard work ethic, and set themselves apart aren't subject to the lowest common denominator situation.

As somebody that hires for my firm from interns through project managers, finding good quality candidates that justify their pay is not difficult to identify. The things people have said in interviews, let me tell you.

 

[QUOTE="spiritgide, post: 1071432544, member: 70923"

Good people are in demand. They don't need a legally mandated wage, because they are worth more- and business is looking for that kind of person all time. All you have to do is bring the right attitudes to the job, and perform. That is a concept which insures they will rise in both income and position.[/QUOTE]

The problem is that Oligopolies engage in nefarious practices to decrease demand - which decreases wage competition - which artificially decreases wages.

 

We need to make more competition. So companies dont get so big.

 

Money is not value. No matter how many different ways you scheme to change the way value is measured and traded, if your scheme is rooted in the transfer of money, then it's rooted in a false premise.

Arbitrary changes to the value of money has zero effect on the value the money represents. You're adding lines to a ruler, not changing the distance the ruler measures.

 

Our Garbage collectors here make good money!

 

There is no such thing as a living wage and searching for that chimera over the long haul makes everyone poorer.

 

Why would you invest if you get no return. Often the return is proportionate to the risk.

 

Eisenhower Tax Code
worked.

Bipartisan Tax Cuts since JFK destroyed it and the
Middle, Middle Class.

That's What Happens When YOU
ize,
​

 

Your circular logic proved its premise with its own premise. If the product produced by workers is bought by society that simply means the product is priced at a level that society is willing to pay. If you raise the price then less of society will buy the product. This has nothing to do with workers wages other than wages determine in part the lowest price that the business has to charge. (and if that price is still too high for the public then the business goes out of business and all the workers lose their jobs.) If you increase wages and the price of the product accordingly all that means for the workers is s/he has to use their higher wages to pay for the increased price of the product. Higher or lower wages per se has no effect on the workers standard of living. Whether they can buy more or less stuff for the wages they do get has a direct effect on standard of living. If a business is interested in improving the workers standard of living it will not happen by simply raising wages carte blanche. It might come about ala Henry Ford who dreamed up the assembly line in large part because it would drive down the price of the Model T to a level that he hoped his assembly line workers could afford -- increasing their standard of living substantially.

Do you know what amoral means? I know of no economic system that is inherently not amoral. Capitalism accepted as a given the greed and selfishness of people, and figured out how to channel that greed into an economic system that is highly beneficial for society as a while. Capitalism has proved to be far more beneficial for society as a whole than any other economic system.

 

No, because that business would last approximately 10 minutes.

 

I agree, I think the problem with stabilising the housing market would be that it would stop the value of houses rising so much. Great for the people who want to get on the housing ladder, bad for everyone who owns a house that wants positive equity. We need to stop viewing the housing market as a profit driven industry which is far easier said than done.

 

And it'll never be enough to live and you'll stand line for house for a loaf of bread that's barely edible.

 

That's a little harsh. I would think 13 minutes is more realistic.

 

The real minimum is zero. The higher the legal minimum, the more people who get real minimum.

 

Why not pay everyone £30k a year? I mean surely it wouldn't affect production. I'm sure there'd be a queue of people itching to train to become a doctor when you earn the same as a shelf stacker. What could possibly go wrong? Meritocracy is overrated, we are all equal after all.

 

If they improve their skill set, and make themselves worth more, then the available pool for that increased skill set decreases, and their value goes up.

One thing to keep in mind if the FMW is increased unilaterally - Those making FMW are still on the bottom of the ladder. It is only a matter of time before that wage is no longer considered 'livable', and the cycle starts all over again.

 

I’m so sick of this minimum wage garbage. Don’t start a family till you are financially stable and get an associate degree in a field that is in demand. Problem solved. I worked a full time job earning a minimum wage while earning my first associates degree. It was a long two years
of only work and school. Lived on Ramen noodles mostly. My first job out of school at age 20 I was making 80k a year. Had my debt paid off in less then a year.

 

In the sixty odd years of my working life minimum wage has gone from 1.92 to 7.25 and almost certainly 10 by the end of the year or by a factor of a little more than 5. In that same time period a loaf of rainbow bread has gone from 25 cents to 2.65 a factor of more than 10.5. Do the damn math minimum wage doesn't help the poor and it screws everyone else.

 

Sorry that isn't socialism. That's just one of the many forms of private ownership capitalism permits to flourish. Hell what you describe is largely how privateers worked in the great age of sail.

 

If a family HAD to do this, I would agree, that is DISGUSTING. Since there is not any such mandatory requirement however, and it is in fact the family's choice, then Disney most certainly has the right to charge whatever they feel the market will bear.

Do you not believe in free will?

 

Worker ownership is literally what socialism is. Socialism is a system of economic organization (centered on labor), not a political ideology. But Cold War propaganda muddied the waters and people in the US equate socialism with authoritarian state-capitalism.

 

Socialism is state ownership of the means if production. That's economics 101.

What you have described is how early corporations worked. A group of people get together pool their talents and resources, establish a contract setting their relationship, and any other necessary terms of agreement such as products and services to be offered, how profits will be allocated, how emergency decisions will be made and who will make them.

 

Socialism is not worker owned business; socialism is government ownership of production and distribution.

 

No, that's state capitalism. Socialism is worker ownership of the means of production. Words have meanings, you can't just change the definition to fit your agenda.

No. That's like saying capitalism is rich guys (and only rich guys) owning everything.

 

Thanks for the evidence that socialists try to make thinks up as they go along. What you're thinking of is communism where the ultimate goal is that workers own the means of production like it or not you are engaged in a capitalist enterprise buying and selling. Everyone of you is a capitalist. You are in essence a privately held corporation complete with a charter detailing how the profits are dispersed.